I want to move to FF, but the 17-55 is giving me doubts.

Recently i've fallen in love with the 'look' of the photos made with a 5D (the color, the shallow dof, less noise). Now i'm seriously tempted to move to a 5D.
Problem is that i love my 17-55 2.8 IS...
The alternative on FF would be the 24-105 for me, because i want the IS.
Would the better noise performance and thinner DOF of the 5D make up for the loss of 2.8 and IS?

Are there people here that made this move to a 5D, also selling their 17-55 for a 24-105? Do you ever regret the choice? Do you miss the 17-55?

Thanks
(by the way: i'm mostly shooting static subjects, people, landscape,...)

Save for the 5D MKII.

The video capabilities are just amazing, and your IQ will be better then the current 1dsmkIII at a third of the price.

There is no replacement of 17-55 2.8 IS on the FF. But I have used my friend's 24-105L and 24-70L on the 5D and they are really great!

That's not really the question twofruitz. It's about the 17-55. If i buy a mark 2 instead of a mark 1, the question is still te same.
Jason, i know that there is not a real replacement but i want to know if people who have made this move ever regret it and miss the 17-55 very much.

jasonleehl wrote in post #6505179
There is no replacement of 17-55 2.8 IS on the FF. But I have used my friend's 24-105L and 24-70L on the 5D and they are really great!

I'd actually disagree, the 24-105L on FF is the 17-55 on 1.6X only better.

f/4 on FF delivers the same DOF as f/2.5 does on 1.6X
FF cameras are at better with high ISO noise by at least one stop
24mm is wider than 'effective' 27.2mm
105mm is longer than 'effective' 88mm
24-105L deals with flare better
24-105L is better built.

I would not spend the money on FF just to use the 24-105L over the 17-55, but I would certainly say that losing the 17-55 is not a reason to avoid going FF.

J-B wrote in post #6505184
That's not really the question twofruitz. It's about the 17-55. If i buy a mark 2 instead of a mark 1, the question is still te same.
Jason, i know that there is not a real replacement but i want to know if people who have made this move ever regret it and miss the 17-55 very much.

My bad. I was trying to say that if you are going FF, then the 24-105L and 24-70L are good lens to go with it. Not to compare both of those lens against the latter.

There is no direct replacement for 17-55 2.8 IS (I sold it when I went for 5D) but I am still happy with my 5D. I won't know your reason for FF, but if you make the switch, dun regret because of 17-55. Oh yes, when I made the switch, I thought I would miss the 17-55 badly. In the end, I didn't missed it that bad.

JeffreyG wrote in post #6505220
I would not spend the money on FF just to use the 24-105L over the 17-55, but I would certainly say that losing the 17-55 is not a reason to avoid going FF.

I would buy FF because i like the look and noise performance of it. Definately not because i just want to use the 24-105. It's option 2 that concerns me: losing the 17-55 and not being satisfied with the 24-105 as my walkaround lens.

jasonleehl wrote in post #6505244
Oh yes, when I made the switch, I thought I would miss the 17-55 badly. In the end, I didn't missed it that bad.

This is what i mean, great to read that.

Thanks for the reactions

The 24-105LIS is a fantastic walk around lens. I have used it for 3 years now with no second thought. Again, you have shallower depth of field, so losing the 2.8 is not that bad. You also have superior noise handling, so if you need you can shoot at ISO 3200 with no second though. Not to mention shooting at 25,600 with the new MkII.

I shoot concerts at ISO 3200 and apply just the slightest noise reduction during the raw conversion and the images are awesome. With a good exposure, there are times when I don't even bother with noise reduction. Especially for black and white. Combined with the 24-105L is a seriously good lens and adapts to many situations well.

Don't know if this will help but I did a quick bokeh test when I had 30d/17-55 vs 5d/24-105 last year here

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=351328

The 17-55 is a very special lens and I would say that the 5d/24-105 would probably give you similar if not better results even at 1 stop higher ISO to give you the same shutter speeds if required.

Why do you need IS on this focal length range? It's easily hand held.

The reason I ask is you'd have so many more options, but for that one detail you throw in there.

JeffreyG wrote in post #6505220
f/4 on FF delivers the same DOF as f/2.5 does on 1.6X

If you are able to get 60% closer to the subject that is.

amfoto1 wrote in post #6505675
Why do you need IS on this focal length range? It's easily hand held.

I for one often need iso1600, f/2.8 and 1/3s or so. It's not easily handheld for me without IS, not even at 17mm.

amfoto1 wrote in post #6505675
Why do you need IS on this focal length range? It's easily hand held.

The reason I ask is you'd have so many more options, but for that one detail you throw in there.

Because IS is awesome when shooting something static. You can use even lower shutterspeeds, so you can also lower the iso. With the 17-55IS i can shoot at a shutterspeed of 1/5 and have perfectly sharp results with less noise because i can lower the iso.

Thanks guys

amfoto1 wrote in post #6505675
Why do you need IS on this focal length range? It's easily hand held.

Alan, I find the IS on the 17-55 to be absolutely invaluble. For the situations I often find myself in, I tend to tinker between 1/4th - 1/60th sec. an awful lot while shooting static scenes. So the point is even though the FL range doesn't exactly seem compelling for IS - if you're the type who likes to frollic in the dark alleyways outside of the speeds permitted by the 1/FL rule, IS still comes in handy. Some of the best shots I've nailed were partially thanks to the IS (either because it would have not been possible without it, it allowed me to shoot at a risky shutter speed with confidence or it allowed me to trade away a faster shutter speed for the chance to notch down the ISO speed, giving cleaner images).

Secondly, it helps to strengthen my keeper rate even when I'm shooting at safe shutter speeds.

In the end, IS just brings so much versatility and the wider the lens, the more useful it is to me. For example, I would love a 4-stop IS on say, my 10-22. I could forget about tripods for good!

Hope that clears a few things up!

Regards,

Quality wise you will loose almost nothing. I've attached a chart which is just a side by side of the Sigma 24-70 EX against the Canon 17-55 IS USM. The data is the photozone.de data, all I did was put it in a graph.

Sigma tested at 24mm/40mm/70mm
Canon tested a 17mm/35mm/55mm

So roughly comparable.

You loose IS, but you gain better high ISO performance so you can keep the shutter speed, if you are shooting static objects or people in dark rooms and want to keep the ISO down, bounce your flash of the ceiling or a wall or some kind of diffuser. I'd argue this will give you better results than the non-flash IS shots.

Landscapes, seriously why buy a 5dII and 24-xx L lens without already having a tripod. But for arguments sake lets say you want IS for landscaps, its usually daylight you shoot your landscapes in which case you will have shutter to spare, and even can go to ISO400 without seeing any noise, if you needed too. Remember the key point is your FF camera will handle the noise a lot better.

They way I see it you will end up with almost exactly the same results, just using slightly different gear (and relying on ISO performance and mono/tri-pods instead of IS). So I don't think you will loose anything, but I don't think you will gain anything at the same time. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

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