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 24 Sep 2013 (Tuesday) 16:38
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Lens advice: 17-40, 17-55 or 24-105L?

 
Puckman
Cream of the Crop
6,311 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 2376
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
     
Sep 24, 2013 16:38 |  #1

I have a crop sensor (T3i) and in addition to the kit 18-55, I also have the 28 prime, 50 prime and 100 macro prime.

Considering replacing the kit lens, essentially, with something to fill that "walk-around" versatility (Where I don't have to swap lenses amongst my primes).

I am aware that the 17-55 would not work on a FF if I ever upgrade my camera to FF, but am not really worried about that right now. If they day comes where I go FF, I can sell whatever lenses that aren't compatible.

So with that in mind, which of the 3 mentioned (17-55/2.8, 17-40/4, 24-105/4 is the best overall versatile, everyday, lens?
Edit: Let me also add the 24-70/2.8 into the equation. Even though I realize that's quite a bit more expensive.


Sony A7RII and a bunch of lenses.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
ekfaysal
Senior Member
Avatar
418 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 28
Joined Jun 2007
     
Sep 24, 2013 16:55 |  #2

24-105 is not wide enough on crop sensor
17-40 would be nice but you would need higher opening then f4
So 17-55/2.8 sounds perfect in this situation


My INSTAGRAM (external link)

Facebook page (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sarch99
Senior Member
339 posts
Joined Jun 2008
     
Sep 24, 2013 17:02 |  #3

Don't agree that 24-105 is not wide enough on a crop sensor. It is my walk around lens of choice. I have a Sigma 10-20 for use on the rare occasions that the 24-105 isn't wide enough, but I'm most likely to find a good angle with the 24-105 and forego using the 10-20.


Believe in your heart that something wonderful is about to happen.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Puckman
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
6,311 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 2376
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
     
Sep 24, 2013 17:03 |  #4

And what of the longer ranges I would miss with 17-55? (ie, what i would get with the 24-105)?
I get that it's a compromise, either get the longer end, or the shorter end.

Maybe a 17-55 and a 70-200L? Something tells me those 2 would cover pretty much all situations (but I'd hate to carry both around at a given time).


Sony A7RII and a bunch of lenses.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,427 posts
Gallery: 61 photos
Likes: 3910
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Portland OR USA
     
Sep 24, 2013 17:17 |  #5

17-55 and don't look back. IQ to rival the Ls and a very practical walk around range.


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
irishman
Goldmember
Avatar
4,098 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
     
Sep 24, 2013 17:39 |  #6

^^^^agreed.


6D, G9, Sigma 50 1.4, Sigma 15mm Fisheye, Sigma 50 2.8 macro, Nikon 14-24G 2.8, Canon 16-35 2.8 II, Canon 24-105 f/4 IS, Canon 70-200 2.8 IS, tripod, lights, other stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,170 posts
Gallery: 70 photos
Likes: 261
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Sep 24, 2013 20:19 |  #7

Since you already have prime lenses for those situations where you need a fast lens, why not consider the EFS 15-85mm IS? It will give you a great walk around focal range on a crop -- wider and longer than the EFS 17-55 f/2.8.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,310 posts
Likes: 2346
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Sep 24, 2013 20:25 |  #8

Skip the 17-40. It is the worst of the three. Too short, no IS, and an f/4
Skip the 24-105. Much better but still f/4 and not really wide.

Leaves the 17-55. About as perfect of a walk around lens as you can get on a crop and right now it's on sale for $650 or there abouts.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Sep 24, 2013 20:40 |  #9

Scott M wrote in post #16322883 (external link)
Since you already have prime lenses for those situations where you need a fast lens, why not consider the EFS 15-85mm IS? It will give you a great walk around focal range on a crop -- wider and longer than the EFS 17-55 f/2.8.

This if you can live without the f/2.8.

gjl711 wrote in post #16322904 (external link)
Skip the 17-40. It is the worst of the three. Too short, no IS, and an f/4
Skip the 24-105. Much better but still f/4 and not really wide.

Leaves the 17-55. About as perfect of a walk around lens as you can get on a crop and right now it's on sale for $650 or there abouts.

This if not. For a crop only camera the 17-55 (or the close equivalents 17-50mm from Sigma or Tamron) is/are much better choices than the 17-40L.

Though personally I didn't (don't) mind 24mm at the wide end on a crop, but I too have an ultra wide 10-20mm for when it is needed. Though if I was not shooting both crop and full frame, I would have probably opted for a 15mm or 17mm at the wide end.

For longer you could use your 100 macro. But I would rather have the 70-200L - yes you will have to carry both. If you think that it is too big get an f/4 version, or even get the 55-250 it is a decent lens.


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Puckman
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
6,311 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 2376
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
     
Sep 24, 2013 21:18 |  #10

Thanks for all the good advice. A lot to think about, but I can see the wisdom in not going 17-40 or 24-105.
Now my list is down to 17-55 or 15-85 for walkaround, and add the 70-200 f/4 later on.

I might end up selling the 28 and 50 primes (Can't sell the 100 macro. Love that thing) if I have the 17-55 range covered at 2.8. I guess I'll worry about FF when I cross that bridge.


Sony A7RII and a bunch of lenses.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elleana
Member
155 posts
Joined Sep 2013
     
Sep 24, 2013 21:31 |  #11

Seeing that you don't have the same consideration as most do - the possibility of upgrading to FF sometime in the future and not wanting to have to replace lenses - definitely makes the most sense to go for a premium crop lens, ergo 17-55 2.8


6D | EF 17-40mm f/4L USM | EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART | EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,423 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 344
Joined Sep 2011
     
Sep 24, 2013 21:46 |  #12

ekfaysal wrote in post #16322409 (external link)
24-105 is not wide enough on crop sensor

It's just as easy to say 55mm is too short. 55mm just barely scratches the surface of the full frame equivalent 85mm to 135mm classic portrait range. Depends on what you want to use it for.

The 17/18mm to 24mm range is, by most people, going to be used stopped down for landscape shots and his 18-55 can actually do that quite well. This would make the 24-105 make a lot more sense for him.

The real question is where the OP spends most time shooting. You don't want to constantly be changing lenses. I would download exposure plot for free and run a histogram on what focal lengths he uses most. If the 17-24 gets a ton of use, then rule out the 24-105. If there is a large spike at 55mm, then rule out the 17-55 and look to the 15-85 and 24-105.

Don't forget about the Sigma 17-70C or the 17-50/2.8 OS too. Another thought is since the 18-55 range is covered, get a 70-200/4 IS or a 2.8 variant from someone first.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RHChan84
Goldmember
Avatar
2,320 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Mass
     
Sep 24, 2013 22:16 |  #13

I have the Tamron 17-50 and love it. I have that with my 70-200L and those are my two lenses I carry around. I couldn't be happier.


Canon (60D Gripped | 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS | 40mm f2.8 | 50mm f1.8 | 70-200 F4L IS| 430 EXII)
Tamron (17-50 f2.8 VC)
Feedback
Facebook (external link)

flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
YashicaFX2
Goldmember
1,003 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
Location: A quiet place in the country.
     
Sep 24, 2013 22:33 |  #14
bannedPermanent ban

You already have a fast prime. I have the 15-85 and rate it the best APSc lens Canon has ever made. If you need wider, get the 10-22. The 17-55 would be my last choice for a Canon lens in this range. The Tamron 17-50 non-VC has all the IQ and most of the range of the 17-55, and is available used for $300.

The 17-40 is kind of pointless on crop. The 24-105 is just kind of pointless. My opinion, please don't kill me.


Dedicated APS-c shooter. Gripped 60D, 60 2.8, 10-22, 15-85, Σ70-200 OS and a big white something or other! Plus a 5D w/28-75.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ceegee
Goldmember
2,320 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Montreal, Quebec
     
Sep 25, 2013 07:53 |  #15

I've tried a number of ranges on my 7D, and the lens I've settled on as my versatile, everyday lens is the 24-105. It's a very useful range; the fact of having the extra length avoids the need to change lenses in the vast majority of situations. Since I photograph mainly living things (people and animals), I don't miss the wide end at all (and in any case, I have a 12-24 if I need it). For outdoor portrait sessions, walks with the dogs, days out, and even studio sessions, the 24-105 is a great lens. I'm very happy with it - even on a crop sensor.


Gear: Canon 7D, Tokina 12-24 f/4, Canon 24-105L f4, Canon 70-300L, Canon 60 macro f/2.8, Speedlite 580 EXII, 2x AB800

Website (external link)

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

3,450 views & 0 likes for this thread
Lens advice: 17-40, 17-55 or 24-105L?
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 quadrentau
1574 guests, 241 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.