Canon 17-55mm EF-S vs. Canon 24-105mm EF

I know this has been covered before and I’ve read the threads but still need some guidance. I have the Canon 10-22 and 70-200 f/4 for my Rebel 300D and am looking for a general purpose walkaround lens.

The 17-55 looks useful but do you think that there is too much overlap with the 10-22 on the wide end? Would the 24-105 make more sense or might I find myself changing lenses frequently as I reach the long end of the 10-22?

I believe the quality of each lens is similar so that is not an issue. I do not plan on upgrading to FF anytime soon if at all.

Thanks for you input.

You need to look at your shots from the 10-22 and see where most of them are taken, towards 10 or 22? You need to consider if you need the 2.8 of the 17-55 as well.

If you haven't used a fast zoom before, you most likely will be satisfied with the 24-105L.
Even though there will be less overlap on the wide end going the 24-105L route, if you constantly find that you shoot around the teens to 22mm area, you might save yourself the hassle of switching lenses. Plus, you get the added benefit of a wide aperture.

I used to have that setup and really didn't mind the overlay at the wide end. I liked not having to switch to the ultrawide, and I liked the f2.8 over the f4. I would prefer to have more overlap at the wide end personally than at the zoom end. (17-22mm vs 70-105mm)

It all depends on your shooting style/pref. Either way you will have overlap, the 24-105 & 70-200 also gives you overlap.

I preferred the 10-22 & 17-55 combo on the crop. But if you like the longer end of the 24-105, than that would be the best choice for you. Basically it depends on your style, if you tend to shoot wide than yes the 24-105 may cause you to swap lenses often. If you tend to shoot at longer FL, the the 17-55 may cause you to swap lenses often.

Another option is to get 1-2 fast primes. I would suggest a 28-35mm & a 50mm prime.

Oh yeah, the aperature may be a more important factor if you shoot in lowlight or natural light. The 24-105 is a great lens, but the 2.8 with IS is a nice to have.

The only thing I didn't like about the 17-55 was zoom ring. Mine wasn't smooth, at around the 20mm, there was a weird tension, almost felt like gooing over a bump. Others stated the same with their lens. Also, the build could have been a little better considering the price.

A bit of overlap isn't a bad thing.
If you need a focal length of "somewhere between 18 and 30mm" you'd keep on witching lenses with the 10-22 / 24-105 combo. Or you just keep shooting with the 17-55

24mm isn't nearly wide enough for a "walkaround" on 1.6 crop IMHO.

10-22 17-55 looks like a winning combination!

nicksan wrote in post #8258730
10-22 17-55 looks like a winning combination!

+1

When I had only my XTI, I used the 17-55 much more than the 24-105. A 10-22, 17-55, 70-200 kit will cover most situations. You won't miss the 56-69 mm focal lengths at all.

I would defiantly go with the 24-105, that's the same set up I have and I love it. The 24-105 is pretty much glued to my camera for general purpose photography.

FF + 24-105L = Winner
1.6x Crop + 24-105L = meh...
1.6x Crop + 17-55 = Winner

At least I felt that way when I had both a FF and crop body.

Have you considered the 24-70?

nicksan wrote in post #8258864
FF + 24-105L = Winner
1.6x Crop + 24-105L = meh...
1.6x Crop + 17-55 = Winner

At least I felt that way when I had both a FF and crop body.

+1 again.

I have both thus have 2 of your winners (17-55 on my XTi and 24-105 on my 5DmkII).

Get the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, and upgrade your 10-22 to a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8.

No more worrying about overlap, and you get f/2.8 from 11-55mm, very sharp combo.

or if cost is a concern, upgrade the 10-22 to Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, and get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8