Canon 17-55 & 24-105L

I have the 17-55, but was curious to know, if I bought a used 24-105 (for more range), with the crop factor, would that be a decent combo or would it be too much overlap in the 38-55mm range?

Too much overlap and the 17-55 is too expensive to consider using both 17-55 with the 24-105.
Unless you go go full frame and decide to keep your old APS-C like I did --- I kept my 17-55 and 10-22 for my old 40D.

The thing is, the 17-55 has f/2.8 and goes wider which I find handy enough to use most often. If I need more range, I rather pack a telephoto zoom like a 70-200/4L IS or 70-300. The standard and telephoto focal ranges are different enough that I wouldn't be switching between them that much. I usually can live with 55mm by zooming with my feet and cropping a bit more.

If you are considering going full frame in the near future and don't need wide angle, it might be worth selling the 17-55 and getting the 24-105. The 24-105 is a good standard zoom for full frame if you want that extra reach and can live with f/4. Another good choice for FF is the Tamron 24-70, if you want image stabilization f/4, and don't need to go beyond 70mm.

I would not select the 24-105L as a match for the 17-55mm. IMO, there is just too much duplication in the overlap. However, the 70-200mm f/4L IS makes a wonderful duo with the 17-55mm. I have been shooting with this pair of lenses for years on a pair of 1.6x cameras and just adore the combination. The 70-200mm f/4L IS lens is a bit more expensive than the 24-105L but, not exceptionally so.

BTW: I don't really miss the 55mm to 70mm gap but, when I was trying to match the 17-4L with the 70-200mm f/4L; the gap was really annoying...

There would be a lot of overlap, but the range of the 24-105L is nice and the lens is sharp. AF is fast and accurate. There are times when it works best.
The issue is cost and the quality of the used lens, and how it works on your camera body, and how reliable the seller is. Money is the only potential issue.
I have the 24-105L, the Tokina 12-24, the Canon 18-55IS, and the Canon 70-210L. I tend to reach for the 24-105L when I need it, as for a birthday party. I also have a number of primes, and use them too.
Sure there is lots of overlap, but the lenses are there for what I want them to do.

DanFrank wrote in post #14711048
I have the 17-55, but was curious to know, if I bought a used 24-105 (for more range), with the crop factor, would that be a decent combo or would it be too much overlap in the 38-55mm range?

I've got the 24-105L and the Sigma 17-50 but the 24-105L is mainly my walkround lens on a FF EOS 3 and the 17-50 is my walkround lens on my 7D. Of course I do have the option to mount the 24-105L on both bodies if I need to.

If I were you I'd keep your 17-55 and think about an EF 70-200L for extra range. You would have a small gap in your coverage but your max range will be doubled compared to a 24-105L.

Or...if you want a long zoom and constant aperture isn't a huge concern, look at the 70-300L. It's fantastic. Might be outside of your budget area though, but I have the 17-55 and the 70-300L and they are a perfect match for each other on a crop camera, the 70-300 is lighter and shorter than the 70-200s, and it is just a great lens all around.

I got both 17-55 and 24-105. I would never consider having both lens in my bag --- way too heavy. Pick one depending on what you want in your main walk around lens.

In my case, I really wanted wide angle and so the 17-55 was a better fit.

A friend of mine rarely shot wide and so the 24-105 was great. Worked even better when he went full frame.

If you really want that 24-105, consider also buying a 10-22. No overlap and you get that ultra-wide focal length.

DanFrank wrote in post #14711048
I have the 17-55, but was curious to know, if I bought a used 24-105 (for more range), with the crop factor, would that be a decent combo or would it be too much overlap in the 38-55mm range?

Makes much more sense to extend your range rather than overlap it. I have a slight overlap with my 10-22 and 17-55, but only 5mm. 24-55 would be too much for me. I actually started with the 17-40 L for my first lens (after the kit), then bought the 70-200 f4 IS. I never really missed the 30mm from 40 -70, so when I replaced the 17-40 with my current 17-55, it wasn't a significant change as far as focal length is concerned.

Unless you simply have no need for the telephoto range beyond 100mm, I wouldn't waste the money on a lens which is really designed to be a walk around lens for a full frame body.

While it's only a 31mm overlap, that's way too much overlap in the usable range. I don't mind overlap. For example if you have a 24-105 and a 70-200, that's still over 30mm that's overlapped. The difference is one lens can do 24-69mm, the other can do 106-200mm, and they share the 70-105mm range. With your scenario, one lens does 17-23mm, the other does 56-105mm, and they share the 24-55mm range.

As someone else said, there's nothing wrong with owning both and choosing which to bring along. However, you asked if it'd be a good combo. I think one of the 70-200 options or even Sigma's 50-150 2.8 OS would be a better option for a combo.

I should add that I have the 17-55 and 70-200II and I don't miss 56-69mm at all.