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 26 May 2013 (Sunday) 10:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Moving 17-55 to FF - 24-70 or 24-105?

 
kaitlyn2004
Goldmember
1,684 posts
Likes: 204
Joined Oct 2009
     
May 26, 2013 10:34 |  #1

Will be upgrading to full frame and wondering about which lens is the better option.

I'm guessing the 24-70 F4L is better in terms of IQ, but loses reach on the long end? The 24-105 is the kit lens so I assume it's not as good in most respects... but it is an L lens?

The 2.8 is... just a LOT more expensive and has no IS, but obviously keeps the f2.8...

What do MOST people who have the EF-S 17-55 transition to for full frame? Looking for a great "walk around lens with great IQ"

I'd hate to step DOWN from the 17-55 in terms of IQ...


My Landscape Photography Videos (external link)
My Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
framedinaustin
Member
113 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Likes: 47
Joined Mar 2013
     
May 26, 2013 10:55 |  #2

What do you usually take pictures of? 24-105 is an L lens. I went FF with a 5D3, and decided on picking up the 24-105 after getting some feedback on the 24-70. I had a T2i prior with an 18-55 lens. Overall, I am really happy with the 24-105, it's perfect for outdoors and landscape pictures. I think it has an outstanding IQ. You can also look in the photo archive and see for yourself what the 24-105 can do.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=142974


Canon EOS 5D MKIII
EF 16-35mm f/4L | EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II | EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM | EF 85mm f/1.8 | 135 f/2L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CaliWalkabout
Senior Member
Avatar
337 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2010
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
     
May 26, 2013 11:04 |  #3

I'm considering the new Tamron 24-70 as the alternative to the 24-105. It compares quite favorably to the Canon considering the price. I like the constant 2.8 of my 17-55 and have the 70-300L for the rest of the range.


6D, 17-40L, 24L II, 50L, 100L, 70-300L.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,272 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 364
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
May 26, 2013 11:23 |  #4

I went with the 24-105L as part of the 5D3 kit a year ago. Previously I had a EFS 17-55 f/2.8 + 7D combo.

I decided on the 24-105 due to it's additional focal range, size, image stabilization (vs. the 24-70 f/2.8), and lower cost. I use this as a general purpose "walk around" lens, and supplement it with prime lenses when I need something faster. The new 24-70 f/f IS is intriguing due to it's size/weight, but that lens was not out yet when I purchased the 5D3 kit. Also, the 24-70 f/4 IS costs more and I would rather have the additional focal range of the 24-105L. That was the only thing I disliked about the 17-55, as I sometimes wished it was longer, and 70mm on a FF body provides less "reach" than 55mm on a 1.6x crop.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,317 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 532
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
May 26, 2013 11:37 |  #5

[QUOTE=kaitlyn2004;159​68765]Will be upgrading to full frame and wondering about which lens is the better option.

I'm guessing the 24-70 F4L is better in terms of IQ, but loses reach on the long end? The 24-105 is the kit lens so I assume it's not as good in most respects... but it is an L lens?

The 2.8 is... just a LOT more expensive and has no IS, but obviously keeps the f2.8...

What do MOST people who have the EF-S 17-55 transition to for full frame? Looking for a great "walk around lens with great IQ"

I'd hate to step DOWN from the 17-55 in terms of IQ...[/quote]

then 24-105L would be a step down

the 24-70L II would be a step up

I haven't used the 24-70L f4 but it's probably as good or better than the 17-55 from what I've read


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  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 14:08 |  #6

Are you sure you need to "step up" to FF?


GEAR LIST
_______________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kaitlyn2004
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,684 posts
Likes: 204
Joined Oct 2009
     
Jun 01, 2013 13:52 |  #7

I looked at my ~2,000 shots with the lens and got this out of it:

Focal lengths used:

IMAGE: http://i41.tinypic.com/2h8ah6a.png

Apertures used:
IMAGE: http://i39.tinypic.com/5l6oa8.png

Right now I've been aiming on the Tamron 24-70 f2.8. It should work well, ESPECIALLY when stopped down to f4. The focal length, I noticed I used it quite a bit at the extreme ends - and the Tamron isn't as great at 70mm... nor is it as long

Wondering what you guys think now then? If I get something like the 17-40 F4 L, then I am covered on the short end... and if I go with an 85mm prime I've covered on the long end. Of course, that eliminates 41-84mm, plus no option of 2.8 like the 17-55 had... even though it got stopped down most of the time.

My Landscape Photography Videos (external link)
My Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Simpleboy
Member
197 posts
Joined Aug 2007
     
Jun 01, 2013 17:49 |  #8

I've made the jump from 7D + 17-55 to 5D3 + 24-105.

Honestly, Apart from the "knowledge" that the 17-55 is f/2.8 and the 24-105 isnt, I'm yet to see a real world application where the 17-55 is miles superior to the 24-105. The better ISO performance more than makes up for the loss of the stop, and depth of field wise, the 24-105 is actually better as the zooming in 1.6x (in terms of focal length) makes up for the loss of 1 stop. On my 5D3, the 24-105 is my most used lens. The 24-105 produces images which sharpen up very very well.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kaitlyn2004
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,684 posts
Likes: 204
Joined Oct 2009
     
Jun 01, 2013 18:04 |  #9

Simpleboy wrote in post #15989918 (external link)
I've made the jump from 7D + 17-55 to 5D3 + 24-105.

Honestly, Apart from the "knowledge" that the 17-55 is f/2.8 and the 24-105 isnt, I'm yet to see a real world application where the 17-55 is miles superior to the 24-105. The better ISO performance more than makes up for the loss of the stop, and depth of field wise, the 24-105 is actually better as the zooming in 1.6x (in terms of focal length) makes up for the loss of 1 stop. On my 5D3, the 24-105 is my most used lens. The 24-105 produces images which sharpen up very very well.

If in not mistaken the IQ on the 17-55 I'd superior to the 24-105, as are many of the other full frame zoom options?


My Landscape Photography Videos (external link)
My Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Xyclopx
Goldmember
1,714 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 202
Joined Jul 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Jun 01, 2013 19:18 |  #10

Simpleboy wrote in post #15989918 (external link)
I've made the jump from 7D + 17-55 to 5D3 + 24-105.

Honestly, Apart from the "knowledge" that the 17-55 is f/2.8 and the 24-105 isnt, I'm yet to see a real world application where the 17-55 is miles superior to the 24-105. The better ISO performance more than makes up for the loss of the stop, and depth of field wise, the 24-105 is actually better as the zooming in 1.6x (in terms of focal length) makes up for the loss of 1 stop. On my 5D3, the 24-105 is my most used lens. The 24-105 produces images which sharpen up very very well.

i agree.

i have both. the 24-105 is not a step down. iq is quite similar. maybe on paper the 17-55 might be better, but in my experience they look quite similar--some shots the 17-55 is sharper, some the 24-105 sharper. it certainly isn't an eye-popping difference like the sigma 35 which is obviously tons sharper.

depth of field will be about the same. you gain some reach with the 24-105. both have is. the 24-105 is weather sealed (and rather well, trust me. :))

the real difference is that the 17-55 gathers more light. that's about its only advantage. i consider the 24-105 the same or better in all other respects.


Dean Chiang (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Blog (external link) | Gear (external link)
My Photos (external link)
Instagram @xyclopx (external link) @feetandeyes (external link) @gastramour (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,540 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 614
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jun 01, 2013 21:49 |  #11

Functionally, the 24-105 on FF is about the same as the 17-55 on 1.6X.

The 24-105 is wider, but it also has it's biggest optical challenges (distortion and vignette) in the range (24mm to 28mm) that is wider than what the 17-55 offers. Still, it's hard to **** about that in a range that you cannot even get with the 17-55.

Both lenses are sharp, both have good USM AF. The 24-105L is better for flare.

I personally have no experience with the 24-70/4L. IMO it could be a much better lens than the 17-55 and offer an optical improvement vs. range tradeoff against the 24-105.


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
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,602 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6565
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jun 01, 2013 23:38 |  #12

17-55 sharpness on crop 9mpx

24-105 sharpness on FF 13mpx

24-105 is significantly sharper on FF compared to 17-55 on crop: dxo comparison (external link)


Sony A7siii/A7iii/ZV-1 - FE 24/1.4 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 - 28-200 RXD
Panasonic G9 - Laowa 7.5/2 - PL 15/1.7 - P 42.5/1.8 - OM 75/1.8 - PL 10-25/1.7 - P 12-32 - P 14-140

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
captainkanji
Member
Avatar
119 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Dec 2012
Location: S. Illinois
     
Jun 05, 2013 04:39 |  #13

I went from the 17-55 to the 24-105 when I upgraded from the 7D to the 6D. I'd have to say that I'm very pleased with the 24-105s performance. I never had a chance to use the 24-105 on the 7D so I can't compare. I did get some softness at first, but it was because of the change in DOF that I wasn't used to (had to pay more attention to my focusing). I'll be renting the new 24-70 II in Nov. and my friend will be using the 105 on his 7D. Can't wait to compare them.


Canon 6D, EF 135f/2L USM, EF 200mm f/2.8 II USM, EF 50mm f\1.4 USM, EF 40mm f\2.8 STM, 430exII speedlite, Flashbender.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bseitz234
Senior Member
Avatar
563 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 297
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Watertown, MA, USA
     
Jun 05, 2013 08:28 as a reply to  @ captainkanji's post |  #14

I will say that I'm in the same boat as the OP, so I can't make recommendations as to what I did when I went FF, since I haven't yet...

But, I am considering a 5d3, and I've decided that if I make that jump to FF, I want to be able to purchase a 24-70mk1 at the same time.

For indoor, low light people photography, I'd rather keep my shutter speed up a bit than rely on IS. If I did landscapes or other stationary photography, that would be one thing- but people move, and I've found that even wide open at 2.8 I feel like my shutter speed is barely fast enough to get sharp candids, so I'd hate to be limited to f/4 in those situations.

Just my two cents.



-Brian
5 EOS bodies, and constantly growing lens selection.
IG @bseitz234

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gabebalazs
Bird Whisperer
Avatar
7,640 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Likes: 1069
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Toledo, OH
     
Jun 05, 2013 10:01 |  #15

Here's my opinion based on experience with 17-55 2.8 IS on close to a dozen crop bodies, plus the 24-105L and the Tamron 24-70 VC both on crop and FF bodies.

I had 2 copies of the 17-55 back then. First one was sharper than my second one but the IS motor crapped out, got it fixed, however, after that this lens mysteriously did not AF correctly on my first 7D body with the center AF point. So 1 specific lens on 1 specific body with 1 specific AF point. No problems on other bodies, and the 7D had no problems with other lenses, it was weird.

Anyway, my second 17-55 was a little less sharp but still descent (first one was super sharp). I traded it for a Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS which also was a good lens.

Then I moved full frame but I still have my 7D and my fiancee has a T4i. I sold the Sigma 17-50 because I bought a 6D kit with the 24-105L. Then not long ago I also picked up a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC.

Ok, after this long intro, here are my thoughts:

- My 24-105 is just as sharp as my 17-55 was, the first one that is. It works great on my 6D, great focal length, IS works well, however, sometimes the extreme corners are less sharp (full frame). It is awesome on my 7D too, no softish corners there, since it's a crop.
So I wouldn't consider it a step down after my 17-55 IS.

What's also notable is that the depth of field with the 6D + 24-105L is similar or maybe even a tiny bit shallower than the 7D + 17-55 IS (I think DoF of the 6D +24-105L is somewhat similar to 7D plus a f/2.5 lens.) Also, with the 6D's excellent high ISO performance f/4 + higher ISO is actually just as usable on the 6D, or even better IQ, than f/2.8 was on the 7D (7D + 17-55 2.8 IS) at shooting low light events.

The Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC is also a very good lens, I'd say close to the 17-55 2.8 IS but in a FF version. It's obviously not as good as a 24-70 II but fairly close (how close depends on copy variation I guess).
The 24-105L and 24-70 Tamron spends about equal time on my 6D. They are both good lenses, but if budget is tight you don't have to have both. It depends, the 24-105L is a very good general use lens, 105mm is nice to have and it is fairly sharp at f/4 using it wide open is a breeze.
But if someone shoots a lot of indoor, low light events, the Tamron would be the better choice. I shoot events fairly often, and planning on shooting a couple weddings too in future so I do need the 24-70.

I have no experience with the new Canon 24-70 f/4 IS, but if I was in the market for a lens for my 6D, I personally would not even consider it due to price, focal length and aperture. For me the Tamron or the 24-105L would be higher on my list. I feel a little bit like Canon answered a question that was never asked by bringing out the 24-70 f/4.


SONY A7RIII | SONY A7III | SONY RX10 IV | SONY RX100 | 24-70 2.8 GM | 70-200 2.8 GM | 16-35 F/4 | PZ 18-105 F/4 | FE 85 1.8 | FE 28-70 | SIGMA 35 1.4 ART | SIGMA 150-600 C | ROKINON 14 2.8
Gabe Balazs Photo (external link)
Nature Shots Portfolio (external link)

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

3,255 views & 0 likes for this thread
Moving 17-55 to FF - 24-70 or 24-105?
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 Mike1911
809 guests, 192 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.