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 09 Dec 2012 (Sunday) 14:22
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17-55 on crop versus 24-105 on FF

 
solara
Senior Member
620 posts
Joined Feb 2010
     
Dec 09, 2012 14:22 |  #1

How is the quality of the 24-105 on a FF versus a 17-55 on a crop?
I know they are different focal lengths even if adjusting for the crop and I'm not concerned about the 1 stop difference in speed between the two.
If I decide to get the 5d mark III, I'd like to know how the 24-105 compares to my 7d with the 17-55. Getting the 24-70 would be too much money.


5D III, 7D | 17-55 f/2.8 | 16-35 f/4 | 24-105 f/4 | 85 f/1.8 | 135 f/2 | 70-200 f/4 IS | 580EX II | YN-560 | Manfrotto 190XPROB+498RC2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,540 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 614
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Dec 09, 2012 14:35 |  #2

I find the 24-105 to be a little handier just on the merits of the broader focal length range, especially on the wide end.

Both are sharp, though the FF camera can often deliver a bit more sharpness overall if it is a 5D2 or similar.

The downside of the 24-105? The distortion and vignetting on the wide end is pretty hefty. Then again, these both get a lot better by 28mm, which is as wide a FOV as the 17-55 is capable of on 1.6X. So it's hard to ding the lens for being a bit weak in a range that the other lens cannot even provide.


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
bobfather
Member
57 posts
Joined Apr 2009
     
Dec 09, 2012 14:37 |  #3

Having shot a 7d with a 17-55 and the 5d3 with the 24-105, I feel compelled to say that the 17-55 was sharper at both f2.8 and f4. But the 24-105 is more compact and lighter, yet feels higher quality. For example my 17-55 had some pretty severe zoom creep, while the 24-105 doesn't creep at all, and actually has a nice, tight zoom ring and focus ring.

Another point is that the 24-105 has better color rendering than the 17-55.

Overall, since I don't think sharpness is the be-all, end-all, I like both lenses equally. The 24-105 is the better, more flexible walkaround, but the 17-55 is a helluva lens as well.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,274 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 368
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Dec 09, 2012 15:23 |  #4

bobfather wrote in post #15345663 (external link)
Having shot a 7d with a 17-55 and the 5d3 with the 24-105, I feel compelled to say that the 17-55 was sharper at both f2.8 and f4. But the 24-105 is more compact and lighter, yet feels higher quality. For example my 17-55 had some pretty severe zoom creep, while the 24-105 doesn't creep at all, and actually has a nice, tight zoom ring and focus ring.

Another point is that the 24-105 has better color rendering than the 17-55.

Overall, since I don't think sharpness is the be-all, end-all, I like both lenses equally. The 24-105 is the better, more flexible walkaround, but the 17-55 is a helluva lens as well.

The 24-105L is actually slightly heavier than the 17-55 f/2.8 -- 1.42 lbs. vs. 1.40 lbs.

I also used to own the EFS 17-55 that I used on a Rebel XT, 40D and 7D -- and now own a 5D3 with 24-105L. The 17-55 does not suffer from the flaws of the 24-105L -- namely distortion at the wide end, vignetting and CA. However, all these things can be fixed easily in Lightroom.

That being said, I still find the 5D3 + 24-105L a more useful walk around combination than the 7D + 17-55 f/2.8. I get more focal range both at the wide and telephoto ends, and the loss of one stop is negated to some extent by the 5D3's superior high ISO performance. Image quality, with a little work in LR, is still excellent.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
paulkaye
Senior Member
Avatar
559 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Leamington, UK
     
Dec 09, 2012 16:40 |  #5

Had them both - 17-55 on a 40d and 24-105 on a 5dii. They are very similar lenses in terms of build, IQ, AF and general performance. What differences there are between them are not significant IMHO. There's a bit more 'reach' on the 24-105, even after the 'crop factor' adjustment.

The 5dii on the other hand is streets ahead of the 7d in the IQ department, and I would think the 5diii will be just as good or better than the 5dii, but with an AF system to match the 7D.


Paul
_______________
5DII, 50mm 1.4, 17-40L, 85mm 1.8, 24-105L IS, 70-200L f4 IS, 100-400L, 100 f2.8 Macro
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tigerotor77w
Goldmember
1,564 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 52
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Allgäu, BY, Germany
     
May 26, 2013 08:41 |  #6

Trying to make a decision between three lenses:

Tamron 24-70 f2.8
Canon 24-70 f4 IS
Canon 24-105 f4 IS

My benchmark is the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS on a XSi. I'd be using these lenses on a 6D.

For me, the difference between f4 and f2.8 is less about that stop of light and more about sharpness wide open (which I can compare via, e.g., thedigitalpicture's tool) so I'm mostly curious on these characteristics:

1) autofocus speed
2) autofocus accuracy
3) color reproduction
4) sharpness (in going from 17-55 to 24-xxx on crop --> FF. thedigitalpicture's tool isn't quite as helpful in this regard as it compares either a 60D or 50D to a 1Ds Mark III -- in almost every case the resolution of the sensor largely skews the result in favor of the EF lenses)

I'm very impressed with my 17-55, but its zooming system has crapped out twice now. Of course I'd like whichever lens I get to surpass the 17-55 in each of these categories, but I'm curious about what I'd be sacrificing when moving to full-frame.


Photo blog (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tigerotor77w
Goldmember
1,564 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 52
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Allgäu, BY, Germany
     
May 26, 2013 08:48 |  #7

On second thought... I've forgotten the 1Ds III is 22 MP (just like the 5DII). If the IQ increase from 60D+ 17-55 to 1Ds III+24-105 is indicative of XSi+17-55 to 1DsIII+24-105, then that should just about seal in that lens as being an IQ equivalent to the 17-55.

Then the question becomes AF. Between the Tamron, 24-105, and 17-55, how does AF speed and accuracy compare?


Photo blog (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TweakMDS
Goldmember
Avatar
2,242 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Netherlands
     
May 26, 2013 13:44 |  #8

I absolutely love my 24-105 for what it is. Easily the best bang for buck zoom on FF with good handling, build quality and a decent price tag (especially used).
Since it's essentially a kit lens, there's many upgrade paths (24-70 2.8 and primes). That ensures there's always a steady offer on the used market.

It's still my go-to lens for strobist portraits, together with the 85mm 1.8.


Some of my lenses focus beyond infinity...!
~Michael
Gear | Flickr (external link)
"My featured shots" (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gasrocks
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,432 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Portage, Wisconsin USA
     
May 26, 2013 14:03 |  #9

I chose 17-55 on crop. Had the other combo, sold it.


GEAR LIST
_______________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
44,472 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3531
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
May 26, 2013 21:52 |  #10

Comparing apples and oranges! Remember that IQ is the product of Lens * Format.

In the case of 17-55mm on 15MPixel APS-C, it can resolve 2536 line-pairs of detail in the APS-C frame height.

The 24-104mm on 15Mpixel FF, it can resolve 3409 line-pairs of detail in the FF frame height.

Both MTF values published by photozone.de and you cannot tell how much performance is lens, and how much performance is format.


But if we look at how the 24-105mm does on 15Mpixel APS-C, we see that the 24-105mm trails the 17-55mm by just a tiny bit, at peak MTF of 2448 line-pairs of detail. A not statistically signficant difference...it might have been a test of a good 17-55 vs. a mediocre 24-105, but if we tested two other samples, the result might be flipped the other way around.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tigerotor77w
Goldmember
1,564 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 52
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Allgäu, BY, Germany
     
May 26, 2013 22:00 |  #11

Wilt wrote in post #15970651 (external link)
Comparing apples and oranges! Remember that IQ is the product of Lens * Format.

In the case of 17-55mm on 15MPixel APS-C, it can resolve 2536 line-pairs of detail in the APS-C frame height.

The 24-104mm on 15Mpixel FF, it can resolve 3409 line-pairs of detail in the FF frame height.

Both MTF values published by photozone.de and you cannot tell how much performance is lens, and how much performance is format.

You summarized this extremely well -- that's exactly what I was thinking. Overall, 24-105 + FF seems to be offer more resolution than APS-C + 17-55, at least with the specific lens and body combo used from photozone.de

So my question stands now as AF speed and accuracy. How do the two compare there?


Photo blog (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
May 26, 2013 22:06 |  #12
bannedPermanent ban

tigerotor77w wrote in post #15970674 (external link)
So my question stands now as AF speed and accuracy. How do the two compare there?

AF speed and accuracy are somehow linked to the body too imo. For example, a 7D + 17-55 will probably gives higher hit rate than say a 5D2 + 24-105.

But if you are comparing just the lenses, I think they are close. However let's not forget that 24-105 has better build, not a dust magnet and it's weather sealed (with a filter).

Simply put, the ff combo is (almost) better than crop in every single way. Exactly why I made the switch long time ago after realizing the best crop camera + best crop zoom still lags behind ff + mediocre kit zoom.


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
4,048 posts
Gallery: 54 photos
Likes: 610
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
     
May 28, 2013 16:28 |  #13

solara wrote in post #15345617 (external link)
How is the quality of the 24-105 on a FF versus a 17-55 on a crop?
I know they are different focal lengths even if adjusting for the crop and I'm not concerned about the 1 stop difference in speed between the two.
If I decide to get the 5d mark III, I'd like to know how the 24-105 compares to my 7d with the 17-55. Getting the 24-70 would be too much money.

If you go FF, another alternative, if it hasn't been mentioned is the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8. Its often been noted that its close to the IQ of the Canon version, has VC (Tamron's IS) which the Canon version doesn't have, and sells for over $900 less. The build is considered very good and its a whole stop faster than the 24-105. Not pushing it, just laying it on the table.


Mark
Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab Elite, ON1

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

4,892 views & 0 likes for this thread
17-55 on crop versus 24-105 on FF
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 Feedmypets
621 guests, 183 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.