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 13 Jul 2008 (Sunday) 11:03
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17-55mm vs 24-105mm

 
Nick_C
Goldmember
Avatar
4,042 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Tin Mine Country (Cornwall UK)
     
Jul 13, 2008 14:27 |  #16

I love the 24-105L, build quality is superb, something worse considering, its not very wide on a 40D though, also something to consider.

I used to own the 17-55IS, but the IS was problematic, I had it fail twice, although to be fair I never had the dust issue many report (probably because I had a UV on all the time) but once bitten & all that, I later read online that the IS is its weak point & that you should turn it off when its not needed, I may have been unlucky but no thanks, never again... its too costly to risk.. where as the L feels much better built & has a quality feel about it, but if you find 24mm isnt wide enough, then it would have to be the 17-55IS you havent really got all that many other choices to go for, especially if you want IS.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Mark-B
Goldmember
Avatar
2,248 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Louisiana
     
Jul 13, 2008 14:45 |  #17

mafpolo wrote in post #5902438 (external link)
I have the 70-200 2.8 IS

Should I add the 24-105mm f4 (and later add a wide angle lens)?

Or....should I go with the 17-55mm f2.8 and then just have two lenses to carry?

The 24-105 is L series glass, but it is f4

The 17-55 is not L series (sales guy says glass is stellar on this lens), but it is f2.8.

The 17-55 is not an L series lens, but it does contain a UD lens element. All L series lenses contain either a UD element, a flourite element, or a ground aspheric element (instead of a moulded element). [Info taken from photonotes.org (external link)]

If you were looking at the glass in the lens only, the 17-55 could have been an L lens.

Both the 17-55 and 24-105 extend while zooming, so you lose out on that feature with both lenses. The main L feature missing from the 17-55 that most people complain about is the magnesium alloy construction. The 17-55 is made from polycarbonate plastic instead of the metal. That is the same material used for many of Canon's other lens and camera bodies.

The other big difference (to me) is that the placement of the zoom and focus rings are reversed on L and non-L lenses. L lenses have the focus ring at the front of the barrel and the zoom at the rear of the barrel. This is for easier manual focus. Non-L lenses will have the zoom ring at the front and the focus ring at the back.

I chose the 17-55 and 70-200. I am very satisfied with the optical quality of these lenses and I really like the f/2.8 and IS. On the negative side, 55mm is not long enough for general purpose use. I think I would have been equally happy with the 10-22 and 24-105.


.

.


Mark-B
msbphoto.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Andy_Cam
Senior Member
Avatar
385 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
     
Jul 13, 2008 15:37 |  #18

The majority of my shots are over 24mm so I am happy with my 24-105 choice. The only thing that I stumble on is the need for my 30mm f1.4 for indoor use. Outdoors, no problems at all.


Gear | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vic6string
Senior Member
607 posts
Joined May 2007
     
Jul 13, 2008 15:56 |  #19

If you find 24mm on the wide end to be wide enough for you, there is no question the 24-105 is a better lens, and really the difference from f2.8 to f4 is not a problem since the 24-105 is sharp at f4 so stopping down is not really needed. The only reason I would consider the 17-55 over the 24-105 is if I were taking a bunch of shots below 24mm. I think that while the 17-55 is a nice lens, it is WAY overpriced for what you are getting.


Rebel XTi, 430ex, Tammy 28-75, nifty fifty, kit lens, tons of reading, not enough practice, and two gorgeous subjects (my kiddies)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigBlueDodge
Goldmember
Avatar
3,726 posts
Joined May 2005
Location: Lonestar State
     
Jul 13, 2008 16:01 |  #20

Vic, have you owned either lens? I'm looking at your signature and don't see either. I have owned the 24-70L, 24-105L, and 17-55 f/2.8, so my post comes from what I have personally observed during ownership of both of the lenses.


David (aka BigBlueDodge)
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
djeuch
Senior Member
Avatar
933 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Langhorne, PA USA
     
Jul 13, 2008 16:26 |  #21

Andy_Cam wrote in post #5903624 (external link)
The majority of my shots are over 24mm so I am happy with my 24-105 choice. The only thing that I stumble on is the need for my 30mm f1.4 for indoor use. Outdoors, no problems at all.

vic6string wrote in post #5903708 (external link)
If you find 24mm on the wide end to be wide enough for you, there is no question the 24-105 is a better lens, and really the difference from f2.8 to f4 is not a problem since the 24-105 is sharp at f4 so stopping down is not really needed. The only reason I would consider the 17-55 over the 24-105 is if I were taking a bunch of shots below 24mm. I think that while the 17-55 is a nice lens, it is WAY overpriced for what you are getting.

This is/was my experience as well. Sure, I found at times 24mm wasn't long enough, but when I checked the EXIF data, a full third of my shots were at 105mm which is almost twice as long as the upper end of the 17-55mm.

So, do you need 1-stop faster and wider, or do you need longer reach? Build-wise, I'd give an advantage to the 24-105L as well, but ultimately it comes down to which will better suit your needs.

I will add that 24mm on full-frame is very wide, and I have that option now that I bought a 5D, but I've had my 40D for much longer, and the 24-105L lived on that body.


Canon 40D w/BG-E2N Battery Grip | Canon 5D w/BG-E4 Battery Grip | EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM | EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM | EF 85mm f/1.8 w/ET-65III | EF 50mm f/1.4 w/ES-71II | Canon 1.4x TC | Lowepro SlingShot 200 AW | B+W 77mm MRC (010) filter x2 | Speedlite 580EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TaDa
...as cool as Perry
Avatar
6,742 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: New York
     
Jul 13, 2008 16:42 as a reply to  @ Nick_C's post |  #22

Here is one of the better reviews done to date

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=484061


Name is Peter and here is my gear:
Canon 5D II, Canon 7D, Canon 40D
Glass - Zeiss 21 f/2.8 ZE, Canon 35 f/1.4L, Canon 40 f/2.8 STM, Canon 24-70 f/2.8
L, Canon 85 f/1.2L II, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, Canon 500 f/4L IS
Speedlite 580ex II, 430ex - Gitzo GT-3541XLS w/ Arca B1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark-B
Goldmember
Avatar
2,248 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Louisiana
     
Jul 13, 2008 18:27 |  #23

djeuch wrote in post #5903839 (external link)
Sure, I found at times 24mm wasn't long enough, but when I checked the EXIF data, a full third of my shots were at 105mm which is almost twice as long as the upper end of the 17-55mm.

I suspect that many people will find that a significant portion of their shots are at the wide end or long end of the zoom range regardless of the lens being used.

In my situation, I used to have the 28-105 and 70-200. I used the 28-105 for most shots and they were usually at the long end. When I sold that and got the 17-55, I had to change my shooting habits and I now use the 70-200 much more often. I'm sure if I examined my 17-55 shots, quite a few would be either at 17mm or 55mm just like they were at 28mm and 105mm with my previous lens.


Mark-B
msbphoto.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
grego
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,819 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2005
Location: UCLA
     
Jul 13, 2008 18:33 |  #24

For a 40D, the 17-55 will fit you much better than the 24-105 for the walk around. The glass in the 17-55 is L quality though.


Go UCLA (external link)!! |Gear|http://gregburmann.com (external link)SportsShooter (external link)|Flickr (external link)|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Andrushka
"all warm and fuzzy"
Avatar
3,735 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Oct 2007
Location: OC, CA
     
Jul 13, 2008 18:34 |  #25

i've had my 24-105 on my 30D for 2 weeks and its awesome! havent missed a single shot (or a portion thereof) due to the limited wide end!! if you dont shoot much below 24mm the 24-105 is AWESOME! The focal length range is soooo convenient and the longer focal length will give you sweet bokeh for portraits even though it is F4... check my flickr link below for some examples - first 4 shots on the page are with this lens/body combo


http://www.paradigmpho​tographyoc.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vic6string
Senior Member
607 posts
Joined May 2007
     
Jul 14, 2008 13:17 |  #26

nope, I have never owned either lens, but have used both, and have seen tons of samples and reviews. besides, most of what I said does not require owning the lenses, it is just general info. If you need 17-24 or 2.8, you need the efs lens. if not, there are many reasons to get the L for the same price.


Rebel XTi, 430ex, Tammy 28-75, nifty fifty, kit lens, tons of reading, not enough practice, and two gorgeous subjects (my kiddies)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AiGTs
Senior Member
535 posts
Joined Oct 2006
     
Jul 14, 2008 15:14 as a reply to  @ vic6string's post |  #27

17-55 is the one lens solution for crop sensor cameras. It does just about everything I need to shoot, even in very poor lighting conditions which most zoom lenses suffer. I'd say get the 17-55!


20D 24 2.8 85 1.8
M8 35Lux 50Lux 50Nok

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Riktar
Member
Avatar
123 posts
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Neosho, WI
     
Jul 14, 2008 15:19 as a reply to  @ AiGTs's post |  #28

I have the 40D and use the 70-200mm f2.8 IS along with the 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens. I NEVER miss the 15mm "gap" between the lenses.

And as others have said it is a VERY fine piece of glass.


Canon gear - 7D, 50mm f/1.8 II, 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, 15-85mm IS, Nissin Di866 flash.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
n1as
Goldmember
2,330 posts
Likes: 25
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
Jul 14, 2008 16:03 as a reply to  @ Riktar's post |  #29

For a crop body, 17-55 is my (reluctant) choice.

I'll probably get in trouble for this ... but ...

I believe those who say 24mm is wide enough are those who haven't learned to shoot WA images and just don't see the world that way.

I had the 24-70 and preferred it's quality but sold it in favor of the 17-55. I miss the 50-70 end, but not as much as I missed the 17-24 end before the swap. I often find that 17 isn't wide enough. Sometimes my 11mm lens isn't wide enough!

When I had the 24-70, I was swapping lenses all the time between it and the 10-22, trying to cover that 18 - 30 range. Now, I can shoot with just the 17-55.


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
versedmb
Goldmember
4,448 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Apr 2006
     
Jul 14, 2008 16:09 |  #30

n1as wrote in post #5910479 (external link)
For a crop body, 17-55 is my (reluctant) choice......
When I had the 24-70, I was swapping lenses all the time between it and the 10-22, trying to cover that 18 - 30 range. Now, I can shoot with just the 17-55.

Ditto.

For a 1.6X crop, the 17-55 is the one to get.; its the perfect FL and its silly sharp. The 24-105 just doesn't make sense on a 1.6X crop to me.


Gear List

Michael

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

9,523 views & 0 likes for this thread
17-55mm vs 24-105mm
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 michalu
810 guests, 315 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.