Would Like Some Opinions: Which Pair of Lenses Would You Buy?

I currently have the gear as listed in my signature.

I plan to do one of the following:

1) Buy a 24-105 f4 IS L, 70-200 f4 IS L and a 1.4X teleconvertor, and sell my 17-85 f4-5.6 IS, 55-250 f3.5-5.6 IS, and 70-300 f4-5.6 IS.

OR

2) Buy a 17-55 f2.8 IS instead of the 24-105 f4 IS L, and as above add a 70-200 f4 IS L and the 1.4X teleconvertor, and sell the same lenses.

I do quite a bit of travel and landscape photography, and some work for web sites I maintain. I do event photography on occasion. I have two 1.6X crop bodies, but I will admit I have some interest in a 5D or 5D Mk II, but not immediately.

The price of the two alternatives is so close that it is not an issue (less than 5% difference).

So which of the two alternatives is better in your opinion, with the knowledge that I already have the 10-22 f3.5-4.5 for more extreme wide-angle requirements, plus three primes (30, 50 and 85) that are f1.8 or wider, for low light situations.

Maxdave

Just to be sure... the question really is just 17-55 vs. 24-105?

17-55 wins in my book, just for the extra stop. Plus the 70-200 picks up quite nicely where the 17-55 leaves off. You won't miss 55-70.

Thank you, you are correct ... the choice is between the 24-105 and the 17-55, both will be complemented by the 70-200 and my other lenses.

Maxdave

k_wakasugi wrote in post #8029291
Just to be sure... the question really is just 17-55 vs. 24-105?

17-55 wins in my book, just for the extra stop. Plus the 70-200 picks up quite nicely where the 17-55 leaves off. You won't miss 55-70.

I agree. I just bought the 17-55 this morning and the 70-200 f/4L IS is next in my book (I rented this lens for two weeks last month).

Couple these with the 10-22 which you have already and you'll have a very sweet setup.

Great choices!

While the 24-105 is a great FL, I loved the 17-55 when I had my 30D and 40D. It's a great lens with constant f2.8, IS, and is super sharp.

I walk around with the 17-55 on my 50D and the 70-200 on my 1D all the time. Its a great combo...the 2.8 and IS come in handy

I have the 17-55, 70-200, & 1.4 teleconverter. I get very little use out of the 70-200 despite the fact that is an excellent lens. 70mm is just an awkward starting point on my 20D and I only use it when I need the long end. Perhaps it would be more useful on a 5D?

I love my 17-55, but I still want a 24-105. I have wanted ultra wide from time to time, but not enough to get a lens yet.

How about 10-22 + 24-105 + 200mm f/2.8 ? Add your teleconverter and you have a 280 f/4

Ok, don't want to be one of those undesirables that does not answer the original post. BUT, since it looks like you are in the market for a 24-105 IS, why not spend the couple of extra hundred bucks and get a 24-70 f2.8? Couple that with the 70-200 and the 1.4 tele and the 10-22 and you would be all set. Not sure which 1.4x you are looking for, but if you are looking at Canon, getting a Kenko off ebay instead could make up for the 24-105 vs 24-70 difference.

Anyway, just my two cents...

1.6x Crop = 17-55
FF = 24-105 (or 24-70)

nicksan wrote in post #8030109
1.6x Crop = 17-55
FF = 24-105 (or 24-70)

+1, the 17-55 is an AMAZING lens, I like it better than the 24-105 or the 24-70...The 2.8 and 17mm makes it a solid pick for the 1.6 crops, the IS seals the deal.

17-55 glued to my 40d

I've gotta go with the 17-55 as well. I bought the 17-55 without trying the 24-105 and I'm really glad I did. Recently, I've had the chance to use a 24-104 and I found that it just wasn't wide enough. I couples well with the 10-22 but I think I would be changing lenses too much and it would drive me crazy. Image wise I love the 17-55 and the wide aperture!

I'd go with option #2, but depends on how serious you are about getting a FF in the future. If you are going to get a FF in the 12 months, I'd go for the "L".

17-55is the one I'd go with.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO