17-55 vs 24-105 IQ

For me the IQ of the 17-55 better then the 24-105. I owned the 17-55 for offer a year (in combination with the 7D) And loved the 17-55 never used the 24-105 any more

You already have zooms picking up at 70mm, what is your primary purpose of the lens? Walk around? Indoor low light performance?

I have the 17-55 and I think it's great. I also have the 70-300L, and honestly between the two I don't see a need for any other lenses at the moment, the rest of my collection seems to just be sitting collecting dust.

The 24 is not very wide on a crop like the T4i, depending on your application you may find that you want the wide end. The 17-55 is a perfect indoor lens for events on a crop camera.

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.

Yes it does, you are not Robinson Crusoe there. The 24-105 is a great lens, it consistently delivers good, sharp images - but as you say it just doesn't make you sit up and say wow. I see images in the lens section and they look great, but I never seem to be able to replicate that level with mine.

DiMAn0684 wrote in post #15107928
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.

Perfectly stated. The 24-105L is my work horse lens. I couldn't live without it.

I've used the 17-55 with my 7D for over a year (although its boxed up and for sale). I'm now using a 5D Mk iii with the 24-105. I am very happy with the IQ from both of these lenses. Its a shame the 17-55 is an EFS lens. I'd love it on the FF.

raptor3x wrote in post #15108250
If only Canon would make a 17-55 mk2 with 24-105 or even better, 24-70mk2, build quality.

And then it would cost $2500, not $1100.

Keyan wrote in post #15109202
You already have zooms picking up at 70mm, what is your primary purpose of the lens? Walk around? Indoor low light performance?

I have the 17-55 and I think it's great. I also have the 70-300L, and honestly between the two I don't see a need for any other lenses at the moment, the rest of my collection seems to just be sitting collecting dust.

The 24 is not very wide on a crop like the T4i, depending on your application you may find that you want the wide end. The 17-55 is a perfect indoor lens for events on a crop camera.

I'm pretty well covered on lenses at the moment so no real immediate needs. Just heard so many raves about the 17-55 was curious about real world comparisons to the 24-105L. If/when I make another lens purchase it would be something to fit between the 10-22 & 70-200. The 24-70 is just too much $$ so it would fall to one of these two lenses to relegate the 18-135 STM to video duty.

I have owned both and now only the 24105 due to the focal length. IQ is about the same imo. They are solid but will not blow you away.

crbinson wrote in post #15106060
Anyone have experience with IQ between the 17-55 f/2.8 vs the 24-105 f/4L?

The first 2 pictures in this thread are with a 50mm f/1.4, but the others are 17-55 f/2.8 & 24-105 f/4

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1117888

Nothing but superb results with my 24-105.

I've owned both and if I were a 1.6X user I would probably go for the 17-55 for the focal length. IMO 24mm makes for a funky cutoff on this format.

But as for IQ....The 17-55 might be a touch sharper on the 1.6X format, but they are pretty close. Both have nervous bokeh due to bright ring effects. The 17-55 is prone to veiling flare in a way that the 24-105 is not. The 24-105 has a lot of distortion at the wide end.

Incidentally, the distortion of the 24-105 is more noticeable on FF (which matters not to a 1.6X user) and it also vignettes very strongly on FF.

My husband has the 24-105L on his 7d, and I have the 17-55 on my T1i. My husband likes the reach of the 24-105, but loves the wide end of the 17-55, and he also finds the f2.8 comes in real handy indoors. As far as IQ the 17-55 might be a bit sharper than the 24-105, but we find it difficult to tell our pictures apart between my 17-55 and his 24-105.