Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 10 Oct 2012 (Wednesday) 21:01
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17-55 vs 24-105 IQ

 
Superdaantje
Senior Member
Avatar
557 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Netherlands
     
Oct 11, 2012 11:10 |  #16

For me the IQ of the 17-55 better then the 24-105. I owned the 17-55 for offer a year (in combination with the 7D) And loved the 17-55 never used the 24-105 any more ;-)a


Wagner.photography -  (external link) Workshops photography in the Netherlands & Indonesia -_-
Gear list (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Keyan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,319 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 77
Joined Mar 2011
     
Oct 11, 2012 15:07 |  #17

You already have zooms picking up at 70mm, what is your primary purpose of the lens? Walk around? Indoor low light performance?

I have the 17-55 and I think it's great. I also have the 70-300L, and honestly between the two I don't see a need for any other lenses at the moment, the rest of my collection seems to just be sitting collecting dust.

The 24 is not very wide on a crop like the T4i, depending on your application you may find that you want the wide end. The 17-55 is a perfect indoor lens for events on a crop camera.


Cameras: 7D2, S100
Lenses: 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, 18-135 STM, 24-70 f/4L IS USM, 50 f/1.4 USM,70-300L IS USM
Other Stuff: 430 EX II, Luma Labs Loop 3, CamRanger

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
L.J.G.
"Not brigth enough"
Avatar
10,463 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 36
Joined Jul 2010
Location: ɹǝpun uʍop
     
Oct 11, 2012 15:59 |  #18

dave_bass5 wrote in post #15107613 (external link)
I had the 17-55IS for 5 years. In that time i had two 24-105L lenses. Both the L's were great lenses but i sold each one as there was something lacking ni the images compared to my 17-55IS.
Images from the 17-55 seemed to have more of a pop, more life to them than the 24-105's.
This was on a 30D, 40D and 60D.
I now have another 24-105L but on a 5DMKIII, but still not really loving this lens although I cant actually find anything not to like if that makes sense.

Yes it does, you are not Robinson Crusoe there. The 24-105 is a great lens, it consistently delivers good, sharp images - but as you say it just doesn't make you sit up and say wow. I see images in the lens section and they look great, but I never seem to be able to replicate that level with mine.


Lloyd
Never make the same mistake twice, there are so many new ones, try a different one each day
Gear Flick (external link)r

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony_Stark
Shellhead
Avatar
4,287 posts
Likes: 343
Joined May 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Oct 11, 2012 16:06 |  #19

DiMAn0684 wrote in post #15107928 (external link)
Yeah, I've had 24-105mm for about 4 days, and I think I understand what you mean there. It's a very solid walkaround lens, especially on FF, but there's not much to fall in love with. I can draw parallels between this lens and my Honda Accord. It's solid, reliable, gets the job done, but it just doesn't excite me to use it.

Perfectly stated. The 24-105L is my work horse lens. I couldn't live without it.


Nikon D810 | 24-70/2.8G | 58/1.4G
EOS M | 22 f/2 STM

Website (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
knuckfoes
Member
34 posts
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Newcastle ,NSW, Aus
     
Oct 11, 2012 16:18 as a reply to  @ Tony_Stark's post |  #20

I've used the 17-55 with my 7D for over a year (although its boxed up and for sale). I'm now using a 5D Mk iii with the 24-105. I am very happy with the IQ from both of these lenses. Its a shame the 17-55 is an EFS lens. I'd love it on the FF.


5D MK III with grip, Canon EF 70-200L f4 IS, Canon EF 24-105L f4 IS, Sigma 85 f1.4 EX DG HSM, Sigma 35 f1.4 HSM DG, Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 S DG OS HSM, Sigma 1.4X EX APO TC, Sigma 2X EX APO TC, Canon 600 EX-RT

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Preeb
Goldmember
Avatar
2,535 posts
Gallery: 59 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 225
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Logan County, CO
     
Oct 11, 2012 17:48 as a reply to  @ knuckfoes's post |  #21

raptor3x wrote in post #15108250 (external link)
If only Canon would make a 17-55 mk2 with 24-105 or even better, 24-70mk2, build quality.

And then it would cost $2500, not $1100.


Rick
60D - EF-S 10-22 f3.5-f4.5 -- EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS -- EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro -- EF 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro -- EF 70-200 f4 L IS w/1.4 II TC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
crbinson
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
602 posts
Likes: 86
Joined Jul 2012
Location: OKC
     
Oct 11, 2012 20:39 |  #22

Keyan wrote in post #15109202 (external link)
You already have zooms picking up at 70mm, what is your primary purpose of the lens? Walk around? Indoor low light performance?

I have the 17-55 and I think it's great. I also have the 70-300L, and honestly between the two I don't see a need for any other lenses at the moment, the rest of my collection seems to just be sitting collecting dust.

The 24 is not very wide on a crop like the T4i, depending on your application you may find that you want the wide end. The 17-55 is a perfect indoor lens for events on a crop camera.

I'm pretty well covered on lenses at the moment so no real immediate needs. Just heard so many raves about the 17-55 was curious about real world comparisons to the 24-105L. If/when I make another lens purchase it would be something to fit between the 10-22 & 70-200. The 24-70 is just too much $$ so it would fall to one of these two lenses to relegate the 18-135 STM to video duty.


My Flickr (external link) | My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kenwood33
Goldmember
2,587 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jul 2005
     
Oct 11, 2012 21:02 |  #23

I have owned both and now only the 24105 due to the focal length. IQ is about the same imo. They are solid but will not blow you away.


Gearlist

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark-B
Goldmember
Avatar
2,248 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Louisiana
     
Oct 11, 2012 21:26 |  #24

crbinson wrote in post #15106060 (external link)
Anyone have experience with IQ between the 17-55 f/2.8 vs the 24-105 f/4L?

The first 2 pictures in this thread are with a 50mm f/1.4, but the others are 17-55 f/2.8 & 24-105 f/4

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1117888


Mark-B
msbphoto.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tsmith
Formerly known as Bluedog_XT
Avatar
10,429 posts
Likes: 25
Joined Jul 2005
Location: South_the 601
     
Oct 11, 2012 22:15 |  #25

Nothing but superb results with my 24-105.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,476 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 574
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Oct 11, 2012 23:12 |  #26

I've owned both and if I were a 1.6X user I would probably go for the 17-55 for the focal length. IMO 24mm makes for a funky cutoff on this format.

But as for IQ....The 17-55 might be a touch sharper on the 1.6X format, but they are pretty close. Both have nervous bokeh due to bright ring effects. The 17-55 is prone to veiling flare in a way that the 24-105 is not. The 24-105 has a lot of distortion at the wide end.

Incidentally, the distortion of the 24-105 is more noticeable on FF (which matters not to a 1.6X user) and it also vignettes very strongly on FF.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MissFire
Member
Avatar
178 posts
Likes: 34
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Quartz Hill
     
Oct 12, 2012 00:38 as a reply to  @ JeffreyG's post |  #27

My husband has the 24-105L on his 7d, and I have the 17-55 on my T1i. My husband likes the reach of the 24-105, but loves the wide end of the 17-55, and he also finds the f2.8 comes in real handy indoors. As far as IQ the 17-55 might be a bit sharper than the 24-105, but we find it difficult to tell our pictures apart between my 17-55 and his 24-105.


Lynn
Canon 70D | 10-22 USM | 17-55 f2.8 IS USM | 55-250 IS | 100 f2.8L macro | 430ex III-RT flash | and all my husbands gear!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,961 views & 0 likes for this thread
17-55 vs 24-105 IQ
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is olbez
907 guests, 375 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.