24-105L vs 17-55

I own a 50D. I bought a 24-105L from a member here because of many good reviews, and nice photos I've seen on flickr. After using the lens for a few months, I have slowly realized that f/4 is no good for most of the indoor events that I go to, and switch to my 50mm.

Now I know some might think, trading an L lens for an EF-S lens sounds unrealistic and crazy... I've read many many good things about the 17-55, especially on crop cameras. I've done a bit of research and found out that they are close in price, and it might be a good decision for me to trade my 24-105 away for it. Can I receive some advice or reasons why I should rather keep the L lens? Or maybe if I trade it away, should I ask for a bit of cash from the other side?

Thank you.

I had both lenses, and the 24-105 stays in the dry box most of the time. The 17-55 is not an L but with crop sensor definitly the best wide lens for me. Had to sell it just bec. I went full frame. Nothing beats the 2.8 with IS.

CH_Devin wrote in post #9231727
Can I receive some advice or reasons why I should rather keep the L lens? Or maybe if I trade it away, should I ask for a bit of cash from the other side?

Thank you.

I can not give you proof of anything but i did own the 24-105 for several months & i didnt like it at all personally. I sold mine and bought a 24mm 1.4 prime...but im a prime lover.

Just sold off my 17-55 and picked up a 24-105 as my walk around lens. I'm loving it so far! I just couldn't get myself to like the build quality of such an expensive lens. For low light stuff I just pull out my primes. Couldn't be happier.

The 24-105 is the ultimate vacation lens for FF. The 17-55 is the best walkaround lens for a cropper. Fast glass give indoor and outdoor versatility.
You can keep the 24-105 and just add flash and wide angle. Depends on your shooting style.

arock23 wrote in post #9232316
The 24-105 is the ultimate vacation lens for FF. The 17-55 is the best walkaround lens for a cropper.

I agree totally. I don't have the 24-105, but the 24-70. 24-xx is a perfect mate to a FF camera. The 17-55 is to a crop camera what the 24-xx is to FF. Optically is matches or exceeds the two 24-xx lenses and with 2.8 and IS makes it the perfect choice.

I think it depends on where you are "walking around". The 24-105 was perfect for The Mall in DC last week on the 7D. The picture quality was excellent. I would not have wanted anything wider and really appreciated the length. For me, I would prefer having the 24-105 and an ultra wide for the few times I need it.

arock23 wrote in post #9232316
The 24-105 is the ultimate vacation lens for FF. The 17-55 is the best walkaround lens for a cropper. Fast glass give indoor and outdoor versatility.

I'll second this. To me the 24-105L is a great lens on a FF camera but a lot less handy on smaller formats.

The EF-S 17-55 is pretty much the best option IMO for 1.6X format.

For me the 24-105 is the ideal vacation/walk around lens.

But yes, for indoor shots it's to slow.

If you are a prime lover, I think you should look at those options and going completely prime

I have them both and use them both quite a bit. The 24 - 105 stays on my camera most of the time. I swap out to the 17-55 if I need the low light lens.

Keep in mind that the newer bodies are gettng better and better high ISO performance. The 24 - 105 is a great focal length camera and can serve as a single lens solution for many applications. With the newer high ISO performance, it's becoming more and more useful for a lot of indoor work.

JelleVerherstraeten wrote in post #9232657
For me the 24-105 is the ideal vacation/walk around lens.

But yes, for indoor shots it's to slow.

If you are a prime lover, I think you should look at those options and going completely prime

indoor action maybe but for shooting static object the 24-105L is waaay more useful than a unstabilized f2.8 lens. also, for action indoors f2.8 seldom cuts it, imo.

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #9232910
indoor action maybe but for shooting static object the 24-105L is waaay more useful than a unstabilized f2.8 lens. also, for action indoors f2.8 seldom cuts it, imo.

ed rader

Completely in agreement.

Picking the moments where people move less is very effective with a 24-105L, however, thanks to IS.

Kind regards, Wim

My next lens will be the 24-105. I have the 10-22 and don't use it a lot because I just don't shoot wide that much so most of the time I have the 28-135 on my 40D. If I ever upgrade bodies, which is unlikely, I would like to go to a FF, maybe a 1D, so I don't plan to purchase any more EF-S lenses. In the mean time the 24-105 fits nicely between my 10-22 and 100-400.

As for the 24-105 being too slow - in my limited experience I have found that it is rare that 1 stop is the difference between getting or missing a shot. Today's cameras have such great quality at high ISOs that the difference between f2.8 and f4 is almost not worth arguing over. Now for the few that shoot continually in really bad lighting that 1 stop might be a deal breaker but for most of us I don't think it really makes that much difference.

ed rader wrote in post #9232910
indoor action maybe but for shooting static object the 24-105L is waaay more useful than a unstabilized f2.8 lens. also, for action indoors f2.8 seldom cuts it, imo.

ed rader

Plus to that!
Id like to say mi opinion
People keep saying like a mantra that the 17-55 is the best walk around lens
I disagree
It might be the best normal zoom lens for a crop, but I dont think is a walk around lens, is like naming a 24-70 a walk around for a FF, the 24-105 is a walk around for FF, not that great for a "crop" camera.
It depends a lot on what you shoot and your stile, but flexibility in range is not the 17-55 forte, is too short for some things, not wide enough for others as a walk around.
Other than that, the 17-55 is the best normal zoom if you need constant f2.8 plus IS, there is no other better option for a crop with these features.
Just my humble opinion