17-55 f/2.8 or not

breakdown wrote in post #2661308
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.

With a 17-55 on a 350D, it will still look oddly proportioned -- especially if you get the hood. It'll just be the other way around...

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

You have great lens and the 17-55mm IS is somewhat redundant. I love my 200L. Great boken, fast AF for sports, very sharp (prime lens!) and a great price. This is one of Canons best kept secrets.

I'm one that can personally speak from experience as I've had the pleasure to own both of the lens you are talking about.

First, let me state that the 24-105L is a fine lens. The focal range and IS really make this a versatile lens, and my lens proved to be sharp. I had a 580ex, and the 24-105L/580ex combo produced some fantastic results for me.

I sold it and replaced it with the 17-55 f/2.8. I decided to slim down my kit to as few lenses as possible (I was targeting to get down to 2 lenses). On a 1.6x crop camera, the 24-105L simply wasn't wide enough to be a general walkaround type lens. If I had a 5D, then I wouldn't have sold it as a 24-105L is just about perfect on a FF camera. In the end, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS was a better match for a walk around lens than the 24-105L. Does that mean its better than the 24-105L..... heck no. Would I buy another 24-105L, heck yes, if I went to a FF.

To be honest, I do think that the 17-55 and 24-105 are somewhat redundant. Personally, I would only keep one.

If you have an EF-S camera you will get better optical perfomance from an EF-S lens. That is simply because the lens can be designed to give higher image quality over a smaller sensor than a lens that has to be designed to cover a larger sensor.

We are lucky that we can use EF L lenses on our EF-S cameras, but that is just a backwards compatable solution to fill in until we have a full line of lenses designed specifically to maximize performance on our cameras.

My wife has the 24-105 on her 30D and I have the 17-55 on mine.
Before shooting the pix below, I made sure both cameras were set the same for pic quality, iso, etc. All shots made handheld.
If you want, message me and I will supply the pix info from the Canon software so you can see all of the settings.
You can judge for yourself, but after using both lenses, I would say that yes, you can shoot in lower light indoors with no flash with the 17-55 and obviously capture better action shots. I just prefer the natural light ones myself.
So here they are... 24-105 first. Rest in follow on posts.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Other 24-105

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Now 17-55

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Last 17-55

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

That's it. It's obvious which ones were flash vs natural light.
Good luck with your choice! I happen to love both of these lenses.

Its the same issues in the other thread that 'soundsgood' started. If you find yourself reaching for the 55-105 range a lot outdoors, you may not be happy with the switch. Also, for indoor shots, I'm not sure if 2.8 will cut it either - I know IS helps, but as you know, does not stop motion.

Another option would be get an indoor prime - the Sigma 30/1.4 or Canon 50/1.4. I know one genius who went with this....ohhhhh that's me Will let you know in some time how I find the 24-105 + 50/1.4 combo!!

On a crop body, as a walkaround lens, the 17-55IS is the best choice out there as far as "fully loaded" lenses are concerned.

If you don't need the speed nor the IS then there are plenty of other options out there. The 17-55IS is pricey so that needs to be considered.

The 24-105 is a fantastic lens. It is now my walkaround lens on the 5D. When I had the 30D the 17-55 was the walkaround.

If you are using the flash indoors then the speed isn't that much of an issue. The 24-105IS will do nicely. Someone else mentioned you can then get 10-22 for UWA if you so desired.

If you have no intentions of getting the 10-22, then I would say the 17-55 is the way to go since 24-105 might not be wide enough on the crop.

Either way you are talking about fine lenses there.

The is also the 17-40. f/4 and no IS, but again if you don't need the speed and you are using flash then that might just be fine as well...and it's like half the price to boot.

nicksan wrote in post #2662161
The 24-105 is a fantastic lens. It is now my walkaround lens on the 5D. When I had the 30D the 17-55 was the walkaround.

So if you went back to the 30D (hypothetical, of course) would you prefer to use a 17-55 or a 24-105?

I actually don't mind having both...I carried the 24-105 on my last day trip and it was just awesome. One other reason why I'm little hesitant on the 17-55 is because dust issues. I have read many people having such a problem with this. But shooting at f/2.8, you really can't see the dusts, right?

I have both the 24/105 and the 17/55, and I'm not getting rid of either one. Period.

They overlap to quite a degree, but considering that one is weather sealed (read dust sealed), that means the 24/105 is safe when it's raining or in dusty environments. It also gives some extra length.

I made the comment (foolishly) somewhere that the difference is ONLY one stop. On the weekend, I shot my grand-daughter's birthday party under available light (ceiling mounted fluorescent). The 24/105 would have required ISO 1600; the extra stop of the 17/55 enabled non-flash (too distracting) with reasonable shutter speeds at ISO 800.

Yes, they overlap, but also serve different purposes; or if you wish, can operate under different conditions.

People really need to stop with this dust thing. It bothered me a lot when I first looked into the lens, but now that I've held it hands-on, I can tell its quality. Sure it isn't an L quality, but I don't plan on using my lens as a hammer. If it were affecting IQ, that's one thing, but because it collects dust on SOME PEOPLES copies is blowing it out of proportion. I don't care if a lens is made out of paper, if it takes better shots, I'll use a paper made lens over a titanium steel enforced lens any day of the week.