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

MackDaddy1962 wrote in post #8759845
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'm impressed with the colors it produces, Typical Sigma warmth

I remember i was seriously considering it at one point myself...The superzoom nature and AF performance made me a little nervous however...

For the record, The 17-70 is amazing, I wish they'd add OS to that lens personally...I mean, seriously, a zoom with a 1:2 macro capability! Imagine that lens with OS!

But without OS or a faster aperture, im afraid its not a great all-round lens option [Hey, what if they made it a constant f/2.8 instead? 17-70 f/2.8!]

KenjiS wrote in post #8760620
I'm impressed with the colors it produces, Typical Sigma warmth

I remember i was seriously considering it at one point myself...The superzoom nature and AF performance made me a little nervous however...

How does HSM compare to USM? I have never used a Sigma lens. If it compares to the Tamron 17-50 AF I might not be interested.

DaveSt wrote in post #8760626
How does HSM compare to USM? I have never used a Sigma lens. If it compares to the Tamron 17-50 AF I might not be interested.

HSM in general is equal to Canon's USM, There are differences however, just like in Canon's lineup

The HSM in the 18-125 is similar to Canon's micro-usms, I'm not 100% sure on how it really stacks up to the Tamron however...I just know its not quite ring USM/ring HSM performance

Like KenjiS stated, the HSM on this lens is not like Canon's L USM, but it's nowhere near as noisy as my Tamron. I find it quite nice actually.

MackDaddy1962 wrote in post #8760660
Like KenjiS stated, the HSM on this lens is not like Canon's L USM, but it's nowhere near as noisy as my Tamron. I find it quite nice actually.

is it faster than the Tamron? or is it hard to tell? What about low light accuracy and such

I'd have to say it's faster than my Tammy. Can't report data on low light, as I've yet to give the Tamron a workout (just got it last week.)

In the end, I think I will go ahead and rent a 24-105 for a week and see how it works for me. I want to see what a "L" lens brings to the table compared to my 17-85. I really don't think I will miss the 17-23mm range at this time because I tend to sit back and zoom in on the action as it is. As much as I like the 17-85, the weak area IQ-wise is just that range anyhow so it seems like a good trade-off. If I am underwhelmed by the 24-105 I will probably just stick with the 17-85 and learn to carry two lenses.

You won't be underwhelmed with the 24-105 Dave, trust me. It's a nice lens. Nothing like the feel and performance of L glass.

Dave,
I say go for it, you know best what your needs are. A lot of people argue that 24mm is not wide enough, but you already stated you rarely use your current lens at 17mm and would like something with a little more reach. Some people prefer being able to go wider, some prefer being able to zoom further- I guess I'm part of the group who prefers the latter. I've borrowed my housemates 17-55 plenty of times, and while it takes great pictures, i often found the zoom range limiting, especially outdoors. There are other third party alternatives like the Sigma 18-135, but if you are ready to make the investment for the 24-105L, I say go for it. It's a great lens.

DaveSt wrote in post #8760766
In the end, I think I will go ahead and rent a 24-105 for a week and see how it works for me. I want to see what a "L" lens brings to the table compared to my 17-85. I really don't think I will miss the 17-23mm range at this time because I tend to sit back and zoom in on the action as it is. As much as I like the 17-85, the weak area IQ-wise is just that range anyhow so it seems like a good trade-off. If I am underwhelmed by the 24-105 I will probably just stick with the 17-85 and learn to carry two lenses.

Then i say give it a shot the 24-105 is a fantastic piece of glass, i did like it a lot on my 30D and really agonized over selling it, looking back on it, i wish i woulda just bought a 10-20 to slot under it instead of getting the 17-55...

KenjiS wrote in post #8761462
Then i say give it a shot the 24-105 is a fantastic piece of glass, i did like it a lot on my 30D and really agonized over selling it, looking back on it, i wish i woulda just bought a 10-20 to slot under it instead of getting the 17-55...

Well said. I miss mine as well..

Another option for UWA is the Tokina 12-24 f/4. I lucked out and re-procured another DX1 version from Canoga camera a few weeks back for $400 shipped brand-spank'n-new. The version II is $100 more money, and truthfully I find it hard to believe it can be much better than the version I.

DaveSt wrote in post #8753820
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.

man, i feel your pain.

i keep going back and forth between the 17-55mm f/2.8, the 24-70mm f/2.8, and the 24-105mm f/4 as my next lens for my xsi. i know all the standard responses too.... "get the 17-55, it's best for crop"..... and that may be for some, not so much for me. i like the extra reach. i think 24-105mm is the perfect lens for me, but the f/4 makes it somewhat less than ideal for indoors natural light (and i've read it's actually "darker" than most f/4's for some reason). the 17-55 is crop only, apparently has IS failure and dust issues, and seems to have images that are a bit "cooler" than the warm pics taken with a 24-70 or 24-105. the 24-70 is a great lens with more reach than the 55 but not as much as the 105, but it is known for having "bad copy" issues (i'd hate to have to send a lens back 2 or 3 times looking for a good copy), is heavy (not a real big deal to me), and based on a few things i've read from others around the internets, has to be sent in more often than other lenses for "recalibration". i keep trying to talk myself into one lens or the other, but i keep winding up in a holding pattern. o well, i'll just keep enjoying the lenses i have for now.... eventually i'll pull the trigger on one of them.

The 24-105 is a *fantastic* lens.

But it definitely wouldn't be my first choice on a cropper for a one-lens solution. I'd definitely look into those sigma 18-125 or 18-200 lenses. I really really really want one of those for vacation shooting, but I'm cheap and I can't justify buying a lens purely for recreational use.

DaveSt wrote in post #8753820
...

my main subject matter is my daughter

...

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

DaveSt, If your main subject is your daughter, I am sure you will be happy with the 24-105. I know I am. I have never used anything wider than 24mm for my kids' photos.

That is until I started shooting birthday and other kinds of parties. Yes, you will need wider angles for group shots (10-15 people). Luckily I have my 18-55IS kit lens and 430EXII flash for those occasions.

The truth is 24mm is not bad for those group shots if you have some room to back up. So my suggestion is to get a 24-105, and keep the 17-85 for parties/events (or sell it and get a 18-55IS for a lighter lens to carry around just in case).

You could wait for the new 18-135, but I'd prefer the 24-105 for the constant aperture (and probably better IQ).

picturecrazy wrote in post #8763654
I can't justify buying a lens purely for recreational use.

All my camera bodies and lenses are for recreational use