17-55 vs 24-105 IQ

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.

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.

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.

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.

mannetti21 wrote in post #15106394
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.

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

kin2son wrote in post #15106227
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.

mannetti21 wrote in post #15106394
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.

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_bass5 wrote in post #15107613
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.

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

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.

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.

john5189 wrote in post #15108146
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.

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