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 10 Oct 2012 (Wednesday) 21:01
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17-55 vs 24-105 IQ

 
crbinson
Senior Member
614 posts
Likes: 89
Joined Jul 2012
Location: OKC
     
Oct 10, 2012 21:01 |  #1

Anyone have experience with IQ between the 17-55 f/2.8 vs the 24-105 f/4L? I understand and have read much discussion about focal length, aperture, & FF vs crop. I'm curious how the two compare in straight up image quality.

It seems there is a glut of 24-105 on the market right now that can be had about $100 less than the 17-55 used.


My Flickr (external link) | My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Oct 10, 2012 21:39 |  #2
bannedPermanent ban

well I bet 17-55 is shaper than 24-105 @ f4....and 24-105 can never do f2.8 ;)

If being limited to f4 doesn't bother you, i'd say go for it. Since you have a 10-22 and have the wider end covered.


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DiMAn0684
Goldmember
Avatar
1,933 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Boston, MA
     
Oct 10, 2012 22:06 as a reply to  @ kin2son's post |  #3

I haven't had Canon 17-55mm, but I've owned Tamron 17-50mm non-VC and Sigma 17-50mm which are pretty comparable from what I've read, and I also just got 24-105mm. 24-105mm is a solid lens, good AF, IS works well, build is nice, but you'll not be blown away by the image quality. I mean, the IQ is very good, but so is your 17-55mm. You'll be disappointed if you will be switching from 17-55mm to 24-105mm primarily for the image quality.


Canon 5D MkII | Canon 16-35mm f/4 | Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM | Canon 24-105mm f/4 | Tamron 70-300mm VC | Canon 430EX II | Benro A2682TB1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mannetti21
Goldmember
Avatar
3,231 posts
Gallery: 136 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 516
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Connecticut
     
Oct 10, 2012 22:25 |  #4

For real world use (as opposed to test charts), I don't see any difference in overall IQ, including sharpness, contrast, bokeh quality, etc. I owned the 17-55 for quite some time before making the switch to full-frame and getting the 24-105. I haven't been disappointed.


---------------
5D4, 5D3, Sony ZV-1, Panasonic Lumix FX7, Nikon L35AF, Minolta SRT-102
35Art, 50 f1.8 STM, EF 85 f1.8, EF 16-35L f4, EF 100-400L II
My Buyer/Seller Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nightdiver13
Unabashed nerd!
Avatar
2,272 posts
Likes: 38
Joined May 2010
Location: Bigfoot Country
     
Oct 10, 2012 22:55 |  #5

mannetti21 wrote in post #15106394 (external link)
For real world use (as opposed to test charts), I don't see any difference in overall IQ, including sharpness, contrast, bokeh quality, etc. I owned the 17-55 for quite some time before making the switch to full-frame and getting the 24-105. I haven't been disappointed.

This was my experience as well. Unfortunately, I never had an overlap of both lenses on the same format body, but I would imagine it would make the 24-105 seem even better since the images would draw from the center of the lens image circle.


Neil

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
James ­ P
Goldmember
Avatar
1,909 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 224
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Chatham, Ontario, Canada
     
Oct 11, 2012 05:35 |  #6

I had them both at the same time. I.Q. was identical.


1Dx - 5DIII - 40D - Canon 24-70LII, 100L macro, 135L, 16-35L, 70-200 f4 and 100-400L lenses

- "Very good" is the enemy of "great." Sometimes we confuse the two.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hennie
Goldmember
1,259 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 84
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Spijkenisse, The Netherlands
     
Oct 11, 2012 06:13 |  #7

kin2son wrote in post #15106227 (external link)
well I bet 17-55 is shaper than 24-105 @ f4....and 24-105 can never do f2.8 ;)

If being limited to f4 doesn't bother you, i'd say go for it. Since you have a 10-22 and have the wider end covered.

this and owning both and IQ-wise I cannot tell one from the other.
I sense that 24-105 colors are a bit warmer, but so little that PP nullifies this.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,266 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 363
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Oct 11, 2012 06:49 |  #8

mannetti21 wrote in post #15106394 (external link)
For real world use (as opposed to test charts), I don't see any difference in overall IQ, including sharpness, contrast, bokeh quality, etc. I owned the 17-55 for quite some time before making the switch to full-frame and getting the 24-105. I haven't been disappointed.

Same here. I doubt you would be able to tell the difference in photos taken with the two lenses at identical settings. On full frame, the 24-105L has more distortion at the wide end than the 17-55 has at it's wide end on a crop. Otherwise, though, there should be very little, if any, real world difference.

Pick the focal range and maximum aperture that best meets your needs.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dave_bass5
Goldmember
Avatar
4,303 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 199
Joined Apr 2005
Location: London, centre of the universe
     
Oct 11, 2012 08:13 |  #9

I had the 17-55IS for 5 years. In that time i had two 24-105L lenses. Both the L's were great lenses but i sold each one as there was something lacking ni the images compared to my 17-55IS.
Images from the 17-55 seemed to have more of a pop, more life to them than the 24-105's.
This was on a 30D, 40D and 60D.
I now have another 24-105L but on a 5DMKIII, but still not really loving this lens although I cant actually find anything not to like if that makes sense.


Dave.
Gallery@http://www.flickr.com/​photos/davebass5/ (external link)
Canon 5DMKIV | Canon EOS-M50 | Canon 24-70 f/2.8L MKII | 70-300L | 135L f/2.0 | EF-S 10-18 | 40 f/2.8 STM | 35mm f/2 IS | Canon S110 | Fuji F31FD | Canon 580EXII, 270EXII | Yongnuo YN-622C Triggers.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DiMAn0684
Goldmember
Avatar
1,933 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Boston, MA
     
Oct 11, 2012 09:39 |  #10

dave_bass5 wrote in post #15107613 (external link)
I had the 17-55IS for 5 years. In that time i had two 24-105L lenses. Both the L's were great lenses but i sold each one as there was something lacking ni the images compared to my 17-55IS.
Images from the 17-55 seemed to have more of a pop, more life to them than the 24-105's.
This was on a 30D, 40D and 60D.
I now have another 24-105L but on a 5DMKIII, but still not really loving this lens although I cant actually find anything not to like if that makes sense.

Yeah, I've had 24-105mm for about 4 days, and I think I understand what you mean there. It's a very solid walkaround lens, especially on FF, but there's not much to fall in love with. I can draw parallels between this lens and my Honda Accord. It's solid, reliable, gets the job done, but it just doesn't excite me to use it.


Canon 5D MkII | Canon 16-35mm f/4 | Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM | Canon 24-105mm f/4 | Tamron 70-300mm VC | Canon 430EX II | Benro A2682TB1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
doidinho
Goldmember
Avatar
3,352 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Kenmore, Washington
     
Oct 11, 2012 10:18 |  #11

I have owned both and the 17-55 was noticeably sharper. I have never quite been happy w my 24-105.


Robert McCadden
My Flickr (external link)
MM (external link)
5DMKII, Rebel xti, 24-105 f/4L, Canon 70-200 f/4L, Canon 17-40.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
john5189
Senior Member
598 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2008
     
Oct 11, 2012 10:37 |  #12

The 17-55IS is a fantastic lense: IQ is nearly as good as the 24-70mmL

the 24-105 is not really a standard range zoom on a crop body( no real wide angle-38mm equiv) and on a FF body the wide angle distortion is too much from my tender perspectives.

Maybe the 17-55 is then one of best value zoom lenses from Canon.


Wedding Photography in Herefordshire.  (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scooby888
Senior Member
264 posts
Joined Jun 2012
     
Oct 11, 2012 10:44 |  #13

My 17-55 is sharper than my 24-70 and I wouldn't have put my 24-105 any better than the brick.

If you have a cropper, you can't beat the 17-55.


5DII Gripped, 7D Gripped, Canon 60D, Tokina 11-16 f2.8, Canon 17-55 f2.8, Tokina 50-135 f2.8, Canon 24-70 f2.8 L, Canon 24-105 L f4, Canon 70-200 f4 L IS, Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS, Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L, Canon EF 100 L Macro f2.8, Canon 50mm f1.4, Canon 1.4tc mkii, Speedlite 580ii, 2x Speedlite 430ii, Monfrotto tripods

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
doidinho
Goldmember
Avatar
3,352 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Kenmore, Washington
     
Oct 11, 2012 10:44 |  #14

john5189 wrote in post #15108146 (external link)
Maybe the 17-55 is then one of best value zoom lenses from Canon.


$1000 is expensive for me, so I would have difficulty calling this lens a value lens. Despite the price I would say that quality is on par with the price.


Robert McCadden
My Flickr (external link)
MM (external link)
5DMKII, Rebel xti, 24-105 f/4L, Canon 70-200 f/4L, Canon 17-40.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
raptor3x
Senior Member
Avatar
728 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 78
Joined Aug 2011
Location: Rutland, VT
     
Oct 11, 2012 11:03 |  #15

If only Canon would make a 17-55 mk2 with 24-105 or even better, 24-70mk2, build quality.


Bodies: X-T1, E-M1ii, G9 Lenses: µ.Z 7-14 2.8, µ.Z 12-40 2.8, µ.Z 25 1.2, X 18-55 2.8-4, µ.Z 40-150 2.8, µ.Z 45 1.2, µ.Z 60 2.8, µ.Z 75 1.8, PL 200 2.8

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

5,331 views & 0 likes for this thread
17-55 vs 24-105 IQ
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 Eddy3
646 guests, 340 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.