24-105 IS f4 on Crop or Full Frame

I know that there is lots of talk about 17-55 versus 24-70 and 24-105, I am still thinking about the 17-55, but I think the build quality is swaying me towards the 24-105 until the 24-70 IS f2.8 arrives

I am not looking to debate the benefits of the different lenses, I was just wondering what is the split between Crop and Full Frame for this lens.

Ian.

before you pull the trigger consider the Tammy 17-50 2.8 non/vc...

If you want more range, get the 15-85 f/3.5-5.6

No reason to take the 24-105 over it, At all (Except the constant aperture and slightly better build)

If you need speed, look at the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS over the Canon 17-55, All the good of the Canon optics in a package thats built quite a bit better, has a 4 year warranty, comes with a hood and a case and is less than $700 new...

I borrowed my friend's 24-70 for use with my t2i.

Build is nice, that's definitely going to be true for L lenses. But on a crop 24 isn't wide enough for me, I think I'd definitely want 17 for a crop, so I voted FF for 24-105.

I bought the 24/105 before the 15/85 was available.I tried the 17/55 f2.8 and did not think it was long enough.If I was buying now I would go for the 15/85.
However I tried the 24/105 on a 5dc and its a different animal so a 5d might be on the list.

KenjiS wrote in post #12237851
If you want more range, get the 15-85 f/3.5-5.6

No reason to take the 24-105 over it, At all (Except the constant aperture and slightly better build)

Depends on whether you use the long end a lot.
105/4 is quite different from 85/5.6, especially in low light.
I hesitated between the 15-85 and 24-105 and chose the 24-105 for the extra stop at the long end ; also, I'll go full frame when I have enough money.

i'd rather get the 17-55 over the 24-105 now...after using 24-70 i realized the 2.8 is more important than IS, f4, reach, etc. of course if it were between 24-70 vs 17-55 i'd pick the 24-70 personally but agree that 17-55 is more of a usable range on a crop.

I chose to buy the 24-105 for my 7D exclusively for outdoor shooting of my kids at the park (my summer walkaround). I use the 17-55 indoors exclusively (my winter walkaround). If forced to choose just one, I would go with the 17-55.

BlacknBlue wrote in post #12238280
I chose to buy the 24-105 for my 7D exclusively for outdoor shooting of my kids at the park (my summer walkaround). I use the 17-55 indoors exclusively (my winter walkaround). If forced to choose just one, I would go with the 17-55.

How do you find the image quality between the two lenses?

Ian.

IanW wrote in post #12238400
How do you find the image quality between the two lenses?

Ian.

I've only had the 24-105 for a few weeks but so far it would seem like a wash between my two copies. Again, I would always take the 17-55 first as it is an absolutely incredible portrait and candid lens. I use the 24-105 and my 70-200 as action lenses (if that makes sense).

Both?

Love my 24-105 on the 7D!!! Good lenses should work well on FF or any crop.

I think both should be an option also. The 24-105mm is the same great lens on either FF or Crop, just suited a little better to different situations. The 24-105mm doesn't seem to hold it's value as well as other L's so used it may be economically fesible for 24-105 used and a siggy 10-20mm or Tammy 10-24mm to cover all FLs. Then you have 10mm all the way to 105mm covered for around $1250-$1300 based on used prices I've seen lately for these two lens'. ($800ish and $450ish) With the added bonus of a great FF lens if someday you go that route. IMO the cost of a 17-55mm is waaayyy to high for the quality. (not image quality but build)

the 24 105 L is on a crop body is 36/168 is 36 wide enough for you
of course the 24 .105 is what it is on the FF .
likewise the 24/70 L 2.8 is better for low ligh but no IS and heavier.

lensrental says
Canon’s wide range Image Stabilized midrange zoom is a favorite ‘walkaround’ and vacation lens. It’s very sharp (even wide open), and the Image Stabilization system allows it to be handheld even at slow shutter speeds. It does exhibit some barrel and pincushion distortion at extreme range on full frame cameras.

Roger’s take: I’m frequently asked “24-105 or 24-70.” There isn’t a right answer: they’re both great. The advantages of the 24-105 are smaller size, greater range, and IS. The 24-70 has less distortion and wider apertures. My choice is 24-70 for portraits and architectural shooting and 24-105 for walking around or taking on vacation, but that’s just me.

The 17/55 2.8 is not L
lenserental says

For crop sensor cameras only (T2i, 7D). This lens provides a very wide f/2.8 aperture, three-stop third-generation image stabilizer, and a zoom range that makes it an ideal walkaround or everyday lens. It’s gotten universally excellent reviews for sharpness and usability; it is an L-quality lens, both in build and sharpness.

We continue to add copies (currently 65) as the demand seems to be growing almost weekly. Several people have rented it for a second time now, so obviously they like it.

Only Works With: Crop sensor cameras (T2i, 7D, etc…)

Roger’s take: A remarkable lens. It’s very sharp. The combination wide aperture and Image Stabilization let you shoot nearly in the dark: if the camera can focus on it, you can probably shoot it handheld. For those shooting a crop camera this is the ultimate ‘wedding zoom’ and one of the few zoom lenses that can be shot indoors in ambient light.

Note: We have removed the “high risk lens” designation for the Canon 17-55 EF-S. Failure rates have dropped dramatically in the last 6 months. However, there have been numerous reports in various photography forums that this lens often gives ERR99 and ERR00 with Canon 20D and Rebel XT (not XTi, 30D, or newer) cameras. Not all of these cameras have problems with this lens (older models seem more prone to the problem) and updating to the most recent firmware reduces the chance of such problems occurring.

My First Post:

I have a 24-105 on my Rebel T2i. I was split between a 17-55, 24-70, and the 24-105. The reason I chose the 24-105 over the others is that while I may lose an F-stop relative to the first two, I gain incredible build quality and legitimate 4-stop IS. Additionally, the 17-55 I tried out in J&R felt like a toy; the focus and zoom rings were loose. The 24-70 was just too heavy, in spite of amazing build and 2.8 aperture. This left the 24-105, which has found a permanent home on my camera. I love it, and it's a perfect normal to telephoto for the T2i.

Jason