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

DaveSt wrote in post #8754698
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 ....

The other option is lensrentals.com, for not too much you can rent out a 24-70 for a week or a 24-105 and try it out

As a user of both the 24-70L and 24-105L on a crop body I fell in love with the 24-105. I did because I like to shoot tight portraits, mostly of my 5yo son and 2yo nephew. The 24-70L takes amazing pictures but I always felt that I needed a little extra reach. The IS on the 24-105L is excellent for taking pictures in the shade and sometimes its fun to try it indoors as well. Everyone shoots differently but, for me, I love the 24-105L on my 40D.

I leave my 24-105mm on my 40d 24/7 and love it... You can also take a look at the new Canon 15-85mm.

By-tor wrote in post #8757538
I leave my 24-105mm on my 40d 24/7 and love it... You can also take a look at the new Canon 15-85mm.

The 15-85mm is an interesting lens, but I don't think it is going to give me what I am looking for, namely a little more reach. I'm sure the 15-85 might be a little better optically, but generally I am pretty happy with the results I get with my 17-85 right now. It's good to see people are happy with the 24-105 on a crop body. I like Kenji's suggestion to rent and see how it works. Part of me still thinks I should go with faster glass, but losing the reach seems like too high a price to pay.

On the long end, there is not a huge difference between 85mm that you have now and 105 that you would have with the new lens.

Maybe take your 55-250 and set it at 85 and 105 and see the difference yourself before you go out and spend $1000.

DaveSt wrote in post #8754564
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.

So why do people associate wide angles with landscapes? I've seen spectacular landscapes with lenses like the 100-400L and quite a lot of the shots (the good ones at least) that I saw with the 10-22 or something similar aren't even landscapes. /me is confused.

as others have said... 18-135 IS... 18-125 OS... or even 18-200 IS or any of those wide-range options (18-270 VC, etc..) will all be cheaper than the 24-105

SMP_Homer wrote in post #8758462
as others have said... 18-135 IS... 18-125 OS... or even 18-200 IS or any of those wide-range options (18-270 VC, etc..) will all be cheaper than the 24-105

Yeah, I guess maybe I should re-evaluate my needs. I have to honest that part of the lure of the 24-105 was to hopefully get better glass at the same time. Getting a little more reach is probably just an excuse to upgrade. I bet one of the super zooms would make a great vacation lens though.

I am debating the same move myself. Get rid of the 17-85 and get a 24-105 for walk-around.

If your packing up and taking 1 lens only, then why aren't you grabbing your 55-250? Knowing ahead of time, if that was one of the choices, I'd be grabbing it. That's your extra range. Then you could stay with the combination that you have.

CliffordPhotography wrote in post #8759577
I am debating the same move myself. Get rid of the 17-85 and get a 24-105 for walk-around.

If your packing up and taking 1 lens only, then why aren't you grabbing your 55-250? Knowing ahead of time, if that was one of the choices, I'd be grabbing it. That's your extra range. Then you could stay with the combination that you have.

That's not a bad idea actually. In many cases I think that the 55-250 would suffice nicely as a walk-around lens. When it comes to tighter quarters however (Disney, etc.) I think 55mm is going to be too long. Then again, the 17-85 would be a perfect lens for those occasions (the wheels are turning as I type). The only thing is, then I don't get a nice new lens .... Maybe the 15-85 would be worth waiting around for.

CliffordPhotography wrote in post #8759577
If your packing up and taking 1 lens only, then why aren't you grabbing your 55-250? Knowing ahead of time, if that was one of the choices, I'd be grabbing it. That's your extra range. Then you could stay with the combination that you have.

Sometimes, you just dont have time to switch lenses, Sometimes you really only need that extra 30mm boost, sometimes you dont or cant take the second lens with you, etc This is why zooms came about in the first place, otherwise it would simply be "Why dont you just take the 28, 50 and the 105?!"

This is why i dont just go with a 18-50 and a 70-200 or some such, It means i have to take two lenses for a lens whos focal range i want to pretty much be "The one general purpose lens for when i cant pack a second lens" Of course, my choice in 70-200 wouldnt be that convenient to carry but thats besides the point

Even a 55-250 can be slightly bulky, Sure its not the heaviest lens around, but its not very tiny either...Though i did manage to stuff my 200 f/2.8 and my 10-20 in my pockets once, it wasnt the most comfortable experience...

Sure theres a limit to this sometimes...But my favorite "normal" lens when i shot film was a 24-105, It covered everything i needed it to when i needed it to do so and until recently, i've struggled trying different options recreating it on APS-C

I will also admit i used my 24-105 for a while on my 30D..and sometimes i do regret not just getting the Sigma 10-20 earlier...

KenjiS wrote in post #8754648
or Sigma's 18-125 OS HSM..

I've had both Canon's L 24-70 & 24-105. Loved them both, and only sold them due to the necessity to shift funds elsewhere. Miss them both, but it is what it is.

My recently acquired Sigma 18-125 HSM OS is a fantastic lens. It's not L build quality, but I sure like the pics it produces, price point, focal range and 3 year warranty. Sigma recently changed the warranty for non-EX lenses to 3 years... something else to consider. It really is a nice piece of hardware.

I went back and forth on the issue of focal length. First I had the Sigma 17-70 and found that it's maximum focal length was too short, even though it performed well otherwise. Then I had the Canon 28-135, and missed the wide angle capability of the Sigma. So in the end, I bought the Sigma 18-125OS. Like MacDaddy1962, I find the combination of focal length, price, build quality and image quality that to be what I need. For the price it's a great lens.

Here's a series I shot exclusively with the Sigma 18-125 HSM OS:

http://public.fotki.co​m/mackdaddy/america-abandoned/

MackDaddy1962 wrote in post #8760542
Here's a series I shot exclusively with the Sigma 18-125 HSM OS:

http://public.fotki.co​m/mackdaddy/america-abandoned/

Nice shots!

I have to honest and say this lens has never been in my mind at all. You are starting to make me think this might be the vacation lens I have been looking for.