17-55 f/2.8 or not

on my 30D, I use the 85 f/1.8, 24-104/f4 and 70-200 f/4 IS with TC 1.4

my shooting is about 50/50 (outdoor/indoor)...whe​n shooting indoor, I like to use the flash (I'm learning I should say) when needed with the 24-105. but i'm contemplating of getting the 17-55 f/2.8

but my fear is if this is really redundant and a waiste since i do have the 24-105.

i'm sure i'll get people telling me otherwise...that having the 17-55 and 24-105 serves two purpose. but using the flash, will i really get and see the difference? i'm still able to get a decent pics even without the flash with adequate light inside (24-105).

anyway...this forum is great, but really making my wallet tooooo light.

i could sell the 24-105, but i do love this lens as a walk around lens in the daytime.

I don't know...I'm so confused....

17-55 and 70-200 is a killer combo. Most don't miss the 56-69 range at all, myself included.

I'd prefer the 2.8 over 4 any day, but there is nothing wrong with flashing either, if that's your thing. My old autoflashes wouldn't let you use anything under 5.6.

I don't think you need to get a lens unless you are wishing you could do things you can't do now.

If you are saying things like, "I wish I didn't need the flash as much," "I wish I could get a wider shot," or "I wish my center AF point would perform slightly better," then yes. Otherwise, no.

THE 17-55 EFS suppoters have replaced the 24-70 2.8L folks as some of the most outspoken on this forum. They suggest buying this lens on any "what should I buy" question, it seems for any shooting situation and even when someone states their budget is half the amount.

I've never owned one but judging by the loyalty of the owners I'd say it was a great lens. I think it would compliment the 24-105 giving you lower light capability along with the added wide coverage.

cshk777 wrote in post #2660510
my shooting is about 50/50 (outdoor/indoor)i'm sure i'll get people telling me otherwise...that having the 17-55 and 24-105 serves two purpose. but using the flash, will i really get and see the difference? i'm still able to get a decent pics even without the flash with adequate light inside (24-105).

anyway...this forum is great, but really making my wallet tooooo light.

i could sell the 24-105, but i do love this lens as a walk around lens in the daytime.

I don't know...I'm so confused....

They are redundant! They are different! They are BOTH! (Like Certs!)

17mm on APS-C gives you 28mm equiv. (on film) AOV...wide angle
24mm an APS-C gives you 38mm equiv. (on film) AOV...scarcely wider than 'normal'.

55mm on APS-C gives you 88mm equiv. AOV...a short tele
105mm on APS-C gives you 168mm equiv. AOB...a true tele

If I were shooting 35mm film, I would use a 28-90mm (wide to short tele) as a walkaround lens 90% of the time, particularly if I were playing tourist in Western Europe. I would not attempt to use a 40-160mm (normal to tele) lens as a general walkaround, particularly in Europe because it would frustrate the H out of me...not wide enough, not fast enough! If I was shooting coeds on rollerskates zipping around on a hot sunny day in bikinis in Venice, CA, a 40-160mm lens might be nice because it is less conspicuous than a 200mm white zoom lens.

Since you would be shooting mostly with flash indoors, the max aperture is irrelevant for you. For me, I hate the limitation of f/4 since it limits my low available light shooting.

The 17-55 has IS, which provides 3EV advantage in the camera-shake stopping, but not subject motion stopping. The 24-105 does nothing for both camera-shake or subject motion.

oooh, since I'm deciding between 17-55 and 24-105 I gotta jump in on this one!

I knew i would read what I'm reading...

maybe i should sell my 24-105 and replace with 17-55....I am leaning towards this decision. I think overall, I read that 17-55 fits most people's needs over the 24-105.

Since you're using a flash indoors, why not keep the 24-105 and consider the 10-22 on the wider range? If you're worried about low light shooting then consider a fast prime instead.

cshk777 wrote in post #2660799
I knew i would read what I'm reading...

maybe i should sell my 24-105 and replace with 17-55....I am leaning towards this decision. I think overall, I read that 17-55 fits most people's needs over the 24-105.

If someone was shooting with 350D or 30D, the 17-55 is the better general walkaround lens.

If someone was shooting with 5D, the 24-105 is the better general walkaround lens.

...ignoring the issue of max aperture or IS, and assuming you wanted one lens to play tourist in Europe.

baboymo makes an excellent suggestion for your circumstance, if you find 24-105 filts most of YOUR shooting (many photographers find the tele end of the range suits their needs, and they do not discover WA or the need until years later!) I still would prefer to have a wide-to-short tele as a walkaround lens, though.

baboymo wrote in post #2660811
Since you're using a flash indoors, why not keep the 24-105 and consider the 10-22 on the wider range? If you're worried about low light shooting then consider a fast prime instead.

I personally can't seem to get into the really wide angle lens....maybe it's my shooting style. most of my pics are on my kids and family.

i love my 85 f/1.8 and if anything I'm thinking of getting a 200 f/2.8 for sports shooting...

just seeing if I need both or get rid of and replace.....maybe i'm trying to justify my desire to keep both.

cshk777 wrote in post #2660838
I personally can't seem to get into the really wide angle lens....maybe it's my shooting style. most of my pics are on my kids and family.

i love my 85 f/1.8 and if anything I'm thinking of getting a 200 f/2.8 for sports shooting...

just seeing if I need both or get rid of and replace.....maybe i'm trying to justify my desire to keep both.

From what you have, I see no reason to get a 17-55. It will just be redundant in your collection. My 24-105 does me great even in low light situations.

baboymo wrote in post #2660876
From what you have, I see no reason to get a 17-55. It will just be redundant in your collection. My 24-105 does me great even in low light situations.

do you use the flash in low light? if so, does your 580ex really shine over the 420ex?

Wilt wrote in post #2660732
They are redundant! They are different! They are BOTH! (Like Certs!)

Isn't that like Razzles? ("they're a candy... they're a gum... they're BOTH!")

I think Certs was "two... two... two mints in one!"

cshk777 wrote in post #2660838
I personally can't seem to get into the really wide angle lens....

maybe it's my shooting style. most of my pics are on my kids and family.

Same here. And I find myself wanting to get closer (I love close-up shots).

In fact, many times when I have a wider shot I end up cropping it to a tighter shot.

I can't wait to get my 17-55. Right now, I use my kit lens mostly and I find it to be a really useful focal range for most of what I like doing. I can only imagine how much better L (or near L) quality glass, IS and f/2.8 will be. Plus, I'm looking forward to having a real piece of glass, with some size and weight, on my camera. Right now, it looks so oddly proportioned with a tiny kit lens and a 430EX flash on it.