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

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 am going to do exactly the same thing...
The appeal of the L to me is the build/weather-sealing - If/when I upgrade my camera, I would like it to be decently weather-sealed...
Of course the image quality is always welcomed

Tammy T wrote in post #8763767
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).

Thanks Tammy, that helps quite a bit. I appreciate all of the views here (I could never figure out the multi-quote thing ...). I imagine I will need to sell the 17-85 to help fund this purchase which makes me a little nervous for some reason. I guess if I find myself needing more wide angle in the future that gives me a reason to get an actual WA lens. I might just go ahead and pull the trigger on a used 24-105L rather than renting. I can always sell it later at a small loss and probably still come out ahead.

I sure wish Canon would come out with the 15-85 already. It wouldn't give me any more reach, but if the wide end is more useable than the 17-85 it could still be tempting.

You know, I just spent the last two hours going through the bulk of the pictures I have taken over the past three years or so I have been using a DSLR. I actually found that almost all of my pictures were taken between 18 and 50mm. For the life of me I would never have expected that, although it seems these days I am getting more long shots in there too (usually with the 55-250 lens). The really weird thing is almost every picture I saw that made me say "Ooh .. that's nice" was taken with my 50mm f/1.8 lens or my 60mm macro.

I guess maybe I just got caught up wanting to upgrade and I need to rethink the 17-55 or new 15-85 lens after all. Now you know why my wife makes me research this stuff in the basement ....

I love my 24-105 but due to recent economic conditions I will be putting it up for sale.

How about the 17-40mm f/4? Although it is almost the same thing as the 17-55 f/2.8, you will be able to keep the lens in case you are switching to FF.

did you run exposure plot to see where most of your shots are at?...if you're missing out on a bunch of shots under 24mm it might not be the best option for you

I use my 24-105 L on my 40D than any other in my collection.
I love the extra reach and the L build.

My 24-105 is just as sharp or sharper on my 5D mk2 as my 17-55 was on my 50D.

The build quality and feel is heads and tails over the 17-55.

DreDaze wrote in post #8767984
did you run exposure plot to see where most of your shots are at?...if you're missing out on a bunch of shots under 24mm it might not be the best option for you

I did a "manual" exposure plot I guess, just on paper and over a few ranges (17-24, 25-50, 51-85). What I found was indoors I am almost always in the 25-50mm range, outdoors I am often at the 51-85mm range, and taking landscape type pictures I am usually in the 17-24mm or 25-50mm range. In general most pictures were in the 25-50mm range, but then again many of those were taken with a less active subject.

I would still like to get something a bit sharper at the lower focal range so I am not ruling the 24-105 out, but I think I will wait for some 15-85 reviews to come out before I make a choice. I am hoping to use this lens later this year on vacation (Disney) so I hope the 15-85 isn't delayed too long.

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.

As far as I know, Tamron does not really have a USM [or HSM] equivalent. I went from the 17-85 to the Tamron 17-50 because I wanted the f2.8. The USM of the 17-85 is the one thing I miss the most. I don't miss the IS all that much in the 17-50 focal-length range. I've never used a Sigma, but I would hope their HSM is at least similar enough to USM that you wouldn't be disappointed.

tempest68 wrote in post #8773938
As far as I know, Tamron does not really have a USM [or HSM] equivalent. I went from the 17-85 to the Tamron 17-50 because I wanted the f2.8. The USM of the 17-85 is the one thing I miss the most. I don't miss the IS all that much in the 17-50 focal-length range. I've never used a Sigma, but I would hope their HSM is at least similar enough to USM that you wouldn't be disappointed.

You're right, As of right now, Tamron and Tokina do not have HSM/USM equivalents...

Funny that they chose to develop VC [and whatever Tokina is going to call theirs] before improving their AF :/