Going from 17-85 to 24-105L ..should I?

This decision is driving me nuts and my wife is about ready to kick me out of the house I think because of my constant waffling.

I currently have the Canon 17-85IS as my everyday lens. It might be hard to believe, but I really like the lens a lot and it has rarely let me down. However, my main subject matter is my daughter and she is now going on five years old and I often find myself at 85mm and wish I had just a little more reach. I could zoom in with my feet but generally I have missed the chance to get the picture by then. I rarely shoot at 17mm these days. I generally use a flash indoors as it is, so the f/2.8 isn't a huge deal unless I am away somewhere and I generally don't keep the flash on camera if I can help it.

I already have the 55-250 which works great if I know ahead of time that I need it, but when we go away for a day I usually prefer to pack my camera (30D) and one lens. This has led me to the 24-105L. I know I am supposed to want the 17-55 but I hate the focal range despite the fantastic optics. I refuse to consider a lens without IS.

Am I crazy so wanting to upgrade to the 24-105? Is there is better option that I am not seeing?

Get the 17-55/2.8 IS lens. I sold my 24-105 lens. Seems more like FF type lens to me.

gasrocks wrote in post #8753828
Get the 17-55/2.8 IS lens. I sold my 24-105 lens. Seems more like FF type lens to me.

I know that is the standard answer, but I had the Tamron 17-50 and sold it because I think the focal range is terribly limiting. I found it way too short indoors and almost useless outside. I think I would rather stay with the 17-85 than give up the 30mm on the long side.

DaveSt wrote in post #8753839
I know that is the standard answer, but I had the Tamron 17-50 and sold it because I think the focal range is terribly limiting. I found it way too short indoors and almost useless outside. I think I would rather stay with the 17-85 than give up the 30mm on the long side.

i'd much rather give up 30mm on the long side than 7mm on the short side .

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #8753862
i'd much rather give up 30mm on the long side than 7mm on the short side .

ed rader

I knew I was crazy ....

Can I ask why you would rather have the 7mm on the short side?

24 on a crop is not that wide at all... when i had my 24-70 and a 30d i rarely used it.

why not get the new 18-135 IS.

DaveSt wrote in post #8753839
I know that is the standard answer, but I had the Tamron 17-50 and sold it because I think the focal range is terribly limiting. I found it way too short indoors and almost useless outside. I think I would rather stay with the 17-85 than give up the 30mm on the long side.

i agree with you...i picked up an old 28-70mm 12.8 tokina lens off of ebay to see if i liked that range...and i don't think i could handle a lens that only went to 70mm let alone 50mm...maybe it's just me, but i think i prefer to be farther away from my subjects...i guess it'd work out well indoors, although i've never tried a 17-50mm, i just don't feel that it'd work for me

i'd do it if i were you, but i'd hold onto the 17-85mm for wider shots, or pick up something like the 10-20/2 to give your self the wide end covered for when you need it...also if you don't want to spend a bunch, and want to see if you'd like it first you could easily pick up one of the many 28-135mm's that are out there now...

booja wrote in post #8753930
why not get the new 18-135 IS.

There you go.

DaveSt wrote in post #8753868
I knew I was crazy ....

You are not crazy
In the next couple of months I am planning to replace my 17-85 with a 24-105 - opting out of the 17-55 --> I would much rather have that 50mm on the long end than the 7mm on the wide end - i rarely shoot under 24mm as it is now...
That being said - I would probably keep my 17-85 for the times I do want a wide angle...
Also I have ruled out the 24-70 - although I like the f2.8 - I do not like the focal range, lack of IS, reverse zoom (short at 70 - long at 24), weight, and huge hood.
The 24-105 make up for all of those in my opinion
I also am planning to upgrade to a 7D (in the far future ) So, I also like the build and weather resistance of the L - I do a lot of hiking in the Mtns. of NC where sudden storms are common - I would love to have a camera that I know could withstand frequent showers

I dont use the 18mm range on my 18-55 much either. So my recommendation would be to get the 24-105mm. I've been looking at that lens too. 24mm is not too limiting. I can almost get away with 28mm on my tamron,, but i think those 4mm on the canon 24-105 would really help me. Not to mention the 3stop is and the 30mm of extra reach. So ya.. get the canon 24-105,, i've always heard good things about it. The 17-55 never appealed to me as i find that range a little limiting.

DaveSt wrote in post #8753868
I knew I was crazy ....

Can I ask why you would rather have the 7mm on the short side?

i use those 7mm more on a walkaround lens. it just depends where you want your breaks and i know from experience i'll be changing lenses alot more frequently if i don't have sufficient WA on my walkaround.

ed rader

7mm on the wide end is a huge difference.

Thanks for the replies. I have been concerned about losing the wide end which is why have not moved to the 24-105 yet. I don't do much (any really) landscape photography right now so perhaps losing the wide end won't be a big deal. If I find the need for wide angle in the future that would be a good excuse to get something like the Canon 10-20 perhaps.

You could just limit yourself to 24 on the 17-85 you own and see how you like it

But as stated above, id save a bit of money and consider the 18-135 for what you want, or Sigma's 18-125 OS HSM..

I had a 24-105 on my 30D at one point, it was a really nice lens, but the wide definately got restricting, You sometimes wont realize how much you miss the wide part until its gone

KenjiS wrote in post #8754648
You could just limit yourself to 24 on the 17-85 you own and see how you like it

But as stated above, id save a bit of money and consider the 18-135 for what you want, or Sigma's 18-125 OS HSM..

I had a 24-105 on my 30D at one point, it was a really nice lens, but the wide definately got restricting, You sometimes wont realize how much you miss the wide part until its gone

That's a good suggestion, and I have actually been restricting myself to 24mm and up on my 17-85 for the past couple of days. So far I haven't missed it, but it's always hard to try and predict when I might need it. The 18-135 is an interesting option, but I would like to stay at or above the IQ I have with the 17-85 and I really want the USM focusing. I tend to use Servo focusing these days to track the kids and that's one of the best features on the 17-85 that I already have.

Maybe I'll see if I can borrow my father's 24-70 for a week or so to see how the 24mm end works for me. I hate to borrow that lens because I know I will want it ....