Which to choose? 24-105L or 17-55

Update: I choose the 17-55. 24mm wasn't wide enough for me and 2.8 with IS is just sweet
IQ and AF are really good, but flare is the biggest weakness of this lens! Be aware

Thanks

For me, I consider a "standard zoom lens" to be a 1 lens solution to shooting. I should be able to leave the house with just that one lens, and be able to get most of the pictures I'm after. IMO, I think a lens like the 24-105 on a crop body doesn't really serve this purpose, because its really not very wide on a crop body. However. on the 5D, I love my 24-105 because it covers so much range.

So if I had a 40D and was looking for a nice standard zoom, I'd get the 17-55.

The 24-105 would give you a lot of overlap with your 55-250 lens - also would f/4 be fast enough for you?

17-55IS has less range but has the advantage of being faster and wider. As Tim says, for a crop body the 17-55 is an excellent choice. If I had a full frame camera I'd go for the 24-105.

Your 55-250 and a 17-55/2.8 would make a good pair. I have both the 17-55/2.8 and the 24-105/4 and find I use the 17-55/2.8 more often by far.

Tonight I'm taking firework shots from a 19th floor condo and will bring my 17-55/2.8 for inside shots and the 70-300/DO for the fireworks. The 24-105/4 is not fast or wide enough inside the condo and not long enough for the fireworks shots.

another vote for the 17-55 IS.

weclome to the forum J-B!

my opinion:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=484061

I'd take the 17-55 any day. And yes your tokina goes to 24mm which matches, but the point is that most people need the 17-30 range a LOT, so what ends up happening is you'll be swapping lenses like crazy. With the 17-55 you'll probably hardly ever swap the lens out.

the 17-55 is a great lens. A good friend of mine uses this lens all the time. It's basicly his goto lens for all general purpose. It is on my list of must get lens.

17-55 for sure. It doesn't have the red ring or tank-like build of an L lens, but it's very sharp and the IS works flawlessly.

One bummer is the lens hood, which is sold separately, unlike L lenses. I think I paid about $50 for mine -- ouch.


Welcome aboard!

Thank you for the warm welcome!

Your opinions definately make sense, maybe it's wise to forget the 17-55 is plastic and just look at the performance. After all, i'm always very carefull with my gear and am not shooting in hurricanes
I think it's nice to have an allrounder for when i want to take just one lens indeed.
But i've heard that the 17-55 is a dustmagnet, that it just sucks the dust inside... What about that story?

I'm getting the 17-55, it's time to stop doubting.
(Too bad the tamron 17-50 AF sounds like a transformer robot by the way. As a matter of fact, i think even a transformer would be scared of it. Nice image quality but what a turn-off that is.)

J-B wrote in post #5850001
But i've heard that the 17-55 is a dustmagnet, that it just sucks the dust inside... What about that story?

Just put a good filter on, nice and tight.

It is always wise to look at performance. This is a visual art - your images MUST look their best.

I had the Canon 24-70L and missed a ton of shots at my son's birthday party because it was nowhere near wide enough on the 30D. I traded it the following week for a 17-55 IS and have loved it ever since. The 17-55 is a fantastic lens. As for the dust, I have had a B+W filter on it since day one and not a spec under the front element. And even if there were a couple specs of dust, think about how many specs are between you and the subject that you are shooting in the air. None of them ever show up in the image unless you get creative and want them to.

The 17-55 is the best walkaround for a crop. It really is.

17-55 = killer

Before I bought my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens, I used the 12-24mm Tokina along with a 28-135mm IS lens and really liked that focal range - especially since I use two cameras. The only problem was that I didn't really like the image quality of the 28-135mm all that well.

I now carry the 17-55mm and a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and I am very happy with the focal ranges and much happier with the total image quality over the 28-135mm lens. I still have my 12-24mm and can carry that lens if I know I will be shooting in tight quarters like some old cities of Europe. Otherwise, the 17-55mm is wide enough for me. I don't miss the 55-70mm range which is lacking when I match these two great lenses.

I have and use the 24-70/2.8 a lot. I find it's focal length a lot more useful than I'd find the 17-55 (which I don't have, but I am trading a very lightly used 17-35/2.8 for a Tokina 12-24.)

I couldn't live with the f4 lens in this focal length. In fact, I don't find f2.8 lenses all that fast, but they are the fastest zooms we can get.

And, I'm one of those people who says IS at this focal length is of relatively little use to me. Sure, it's nice if it's on the lens, but I wouldn't pay extra for it. I am a huge fan of IS on lenses longer than 100mm.

In terms of size and weight, which is discussed in the other post linked above, that compares these lenses... I do 10 and 12 hour shoots, sometimes longer, and usually with the 24-70 on a 30D w/BG-E2 and a 550EX on a flash bracket... It's the lighter of the two rigs I carry all day. The other rig I'm carrying is the same but with a 70-200/2.8 IS on it. I'm 53 years old and i don't work out, yet I manage and don't find the 24-70 particularly cumbersome. Many days it's the lightest lens I use, in fact. Yes, my arms are tired at the end of the day.

I can understand where some would prefer 17-55 on a crop sensor camera. I just find the 24-70 range works better for me.

You might want to rent one or more of these lenses and take a test drive, before buying. The 24-70 in particular is often available to rent. I don't know about the others. The 24-70 is a very popular lens with pro shooters, particularly wedding photographers.