Looking for a little help w/ a couple L lenses

Many crop specific lenses are fine on a crop, but some of the zooms made for crops give you lots of vignetting and distortion. While this can be corrected with software, it is another step you need to take.
I have a Tokina 12-24F4 and just got the Canon 24-105L. I considered the 17-40F4, but decided that I wanted the long end, as I already had the wide focal lengths covered. The 24-105L has very good sharpness, color and contrast. My copy seems better at the shorter end (24-50), but I need to spend some more time with the lens.
I wouldn't dump the 18-55IS. It is a good lens, and can serve as a backup on a trip.

Yes, you are right, it's very limited. Like I mentioned about not having extra reach, no IS, etc.... but still, it was enough for me when I had it with my 60D. Now, I have it with my 50D as my everyday camera and I still love it. I really don't need that extra reach and IS for an "everyday camera". As long as it's light, sharp and does the job, it's fine with me. It would just depend on the shooter's specific use and requirements...again, it was just a suggestion

I just don’t get it why folks with crop sensor camera’s believe that buying “L” lens will suddenly make a difference in the quality of their photos; baring KNOWING in fact that you will be moving to FF within the next 6-mos.

Anyone who owns one of the many crop sensors and does not have either the 15-85 or a variant of the 17-5(x) lens has missed the boat; this should be YOUR first upgrade.

Rocky Rhode wrote in post #14740750
I just don’t get it why folks with crop sensor camera’s believe that buying “L” lens will suddenly make a difference in the quality of their photos; baring KNOWING in fact that you will be moving to FF within the next 6-mos.

Anyone who owns one of the many crop sensors and does not have either the 15-85 or a variant of the 17-5(x) lens has missed the boat; this should be YOUR first upgrade.

Well, I guess I've been standing on the dock for years .

I've used the 24-70 as my "walkaround" lens since 2006 and while I won't go so far as to say it's never not been wide enough, I will say that it has very seldom not been wide enough.

runninmann wrote in post #14740816
Well, I guess I've been standing on the dock for years .

I've used the 24-70 as my "walkaround" lens since 2006 and while I won't go so far as to say it's never not been wide enough, I will say that it has very seldom not been wide enough.

Yes; but was the 17-5(x) f/2.8 (IS, OS, or VC) available when you made your FIRST upgrade?

I bet your ship sailed long before that boat even left the shipyards.

If the 17-55 is too expensive for you, then I would suggest the 15-85. Yes, you do lose the constant 2.8 aperture, but the IQ of that lens is great. I personally would not want a gap between 16mm and 24mm. As on my T1i, I found myself shooting between there a lot. When I upgraded my 18-55, I got the 24-70, BUT I already had the 10-22. I did find that 24mm on a crop body was not wide enough probably more than the other people in this thread seem to have. But, I always had my 10-22 to slap on. If you think that you would want to use a single lens in many situations and not have to worry about switching or bringing extra lenses with you, then the 15-85 would be better than a uwa + 24-X lens. If you are in a lot of low light situations, I would suggest you just save up for a few more months and get one of the 17-5x variants.

Rocky Rhode wrote in post #14740971
Yes; but was the 17-5(x) f/2.8 (IS, OS, or VC) available when you made your FIRST upgrade?

I bet your ship sailed long before that boat even left the shipyards.

Yes.

Is the 18-55 holding you back?? It's a great bang for buck lens, and realistically how many times have you said...I could have got a better shot if I had 2.8 at 18mm?? Otherwise your not upgrading. Build quality, weather sealing, IQ, yes is the improvement. Outside of those what's the "need" in that range??

My walk around combo is the Canon 10-22mm and Canon 24-105mm lens. The wife uses the Canon 17-55mm IS and Canon 55-250mm lens. Both combos work great for us on cropped cameras. Our old walk around was 28-135 and 17-85.

DreDaze wrote in post #14740429
17-40L is the last lens i'd buy on a crop camera...

if the 17-55IS is too expensive for you look at the sigma 17-50OS...but for prices you're comparing used 24-105L to new 17-55IS...that's not really fair...

My bad, I was comparing new to used, I have looked at soooo many darn lenses the past few days they are all running together now.

jmcgee131 wrote in post #14741084
Is the 18-55 holding you back?? It's a great bang for buck lens, and realistically how many times have you said...I could have got a better shot if I had 2.8 at 18mm?? Otherwise your not upgrading. Build quality, weather sealing, IQ, yes is the improvement. Outside of those what's the "need" in that range??

For the reasons you listed, build quality, weather sealing and IQ. 2.8 is not that important b/c I am usually shooting landscapes at wide angles.

Calicajun wrote in post #14741295
My walk around combo is the Canon 10-22mm and Canon 24-105mm lens. The wife uses the Canon 17-55mm IS and Canon 55-250mm lens. Both combos work great for us on cropped cameras. Our old walk around was 28-135 and 17-85.

I'd use what your wife is using it looks like, haha. I will look into the 17-55mm a little more....and save a little longer too.

Rocky Rhode wrote in post #14740750
I just don’t get it why folks with crop sensor camera’s believe that buying “L” lens will suddenly make a difference in the quality of their photos; baring KNOWING in fact that you will be moving to FF within the next 6-mos.

Anyone who owns one of the many crop sensors and does not have either the 15-85 or a variant of the 17-5(x) lens has missed the boat; this should be YOUR first upgrade.

Why not upgrade single pieces at a time? Not everyone is willing to take a 4-6k hit when they want to upgrade to FF with a new body, lenses and everything else. If they have the money right now to purchase it, use it and get usable results, why not?

And don't forget, 8/10 people will say upgrade glass before your body..

jjj5278 wrote in post #14740240
I am fairly certain the 17-55mm is out of my price range. The 24-105mm runs about $750 and it seems the 17-55 runs about $1100. The 15-85mm doesn't seem too pricey, but is it that much of an upgrade over the 18-55mm? It seems the extra cost is just b/c of the extra reach, which I don't really need anyway....hmm, never an easy decision w/ this hobby. haha

IMO you sound like a perfect candidate for the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS HSM which alot of folks myself included consider it to be a very nice alternative to the more expensive Canon 17-55 that i also owned:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1023603

Regards whatever your decision, Ron

I managed to pick up a new U.S.A. "white box" version of the 24-105L at Adorama for $829 a month ago. They are still listing the grey market model for about $890.
While I might have been tempted by the 17-55IS if it had been the same price as the 24-105L, I didn't want to fork over the extra $320 or so (including the hood) for the 17-55IS.