****17-55 f/2.8 IS vs 24-105 f/4 L IS**** REALLY NEED HELP!

[BePositive]

Hi, I want to buy a general purpose lens. I am considering to buy either 17-50 f2.8 IS and 24-105 f/4 IS seriously. They are about the same price, both have IS and both are great lens. I shoot street, abstract and macro photography.

I know it is hard to choose I must know what do I usually shoot and what I really need. But I still want to ask you guys, the experts something to help me make up my mind:

Firstly, to buy the L lens means you probably go for full frame. Then why people want full frame so much? For me the 10-22 in a 1.6X body is wide enough and I can get 320mm with my 70-200.

Secondly, What is the power of the "red ring"? Is the color produced from an L better than an EF-S? Is the build quality that important? Will that affect the durability of the lens? For information, I don't actually need weather sealed lens.

Ah, I forgot to say that I am not a pro, I love photography but I want to spend money as economical as possible, handling is important but picture quality and price are more important

Thank you very much!

 

[USM]

Franking speaking, there will be 2 camps supporting for each lens. Therefore, at the end of day, it is you are the one making the decision on which one to buy.

A better option for you is to join my organised outing(s) as there are my bros who own both the lenses. It would be better for you to test these lenses in the fields (real operations) than reading reviews or comments on the Internet, etc. Of course, these stuff are useful in their context.

 

[calebk]

Seems like your understanding of different levels of lenses, EF-S, crop and everything is all a little off. Shall we go issue by issue?

L lenses aren't bought mainly because people want to go FF. I can invest in a non-L with the intention to go FF. Two examples are the 50mm f/1.4, and the 85 f/1.8, both of which are non-Ls, but are tack sharp, and certainly very good quality lenses on APS-C, APS-H and FF sensors.

Why do people want FF so much? Go see drumma's thread. The DOF is totally different, and you are realising the true perspective and angle of view of all your lenses. A 10-22 may get you the same angle of view as a FF 16-35 lens, but perspective-wise, it's a different ball game. Also, you don't get 320mm with your 70-200 lens. You are getting 200mm, 200mm and 200mm no matter what body you are using it on. (This is what I hate about camera companies: they never explain crop factor correcty, and a lot of people have the mentality that APS-C sensors are magical 1.6x teleconvertors) Perspective-wise, magnification-wise, the lens will always be a 200mm at the longest end.

Crop factor basically crops away at the edges of the photo, so that your angle of view is similar to a focal length 1.6x your current focal length. An example would be a 10mm lens on a 30D. The angle of view would be the same as that of a 16mm lens on a FF body. However, perspective wise, take a 16mm lens, mount it on a 30D, and point it at a subject placed in the centre of the frame. Then mount it on a 5D, and you realise the subject is the same size, just that there is much more space around the subject because of FF.

Lastly, the red ring just means the lens is a part of Canon's L or Luxury lens array. This means the lenses are designed for professional use on professional bodies, by professionals who demand nothing less than the best Canon has to offer (I know some L lenses beg to differ). The 17-55 is actually, optically, as good as any L lens. The only reason why it's not an L is because it can't be used on a professional-grade body (ie 1-series), and does not meet the other criteria that define an L lens such as weather sealing.

 

[BePositive]

Oh, I see the point of getting a full frame. Thank you, calebk for your very interesting and helpful points. I also want to thank USM for the info of the 2 outings.

But I still doubt something:
1/ Is the color produced from an L better than an EF-S? Although I will test myself, but I heard that the color of an L lens is better than a normal lens. Is it true?

2/ Is the build quality that important? Will that affect the durability of the lens? Meaning that is the L lens can be used for longer time than the normal time?

Thank you all of you again

 

[genegoh]

For street, abstract and macro, I would say get the 24-105L. You don't need that much of a wide angle and the extra reach would be good for street candids.

My 2 cents.

 

[TYM]

You may want to think long term. This may not be the only lens you may get.
I would say get the 17-55 IS lens first, and for your next lens get the 70-200/70-300 lens.
Would work better than a 24-105 and 70-200. At least u will get your both your wide and tele end covered adequately.
24-105 is a lens more suitable for FF, much like the 17-55 is useful on a 1.6X crop (ie 28-88mm film equivalent). It was launched as the "kit lens" of EOS 5D.
To me a 24-105 on a 1.6X is not wide enuf, and not tele enuf. a 17-55 and 70-200 works wonders, no need any other zoom general street photography.

A 10-22mm and 24-105 may work fine too, but try out the 10-22 first because it has exaggerated perspective distortion and you may need some time to use it satisfactorily for "normal" street photography. Not suitable for portraits.

My take: 17-55mm F2.8 IS and 70-200 F4/ F2.8 IS (next purchase). Dream zoom combo

 

[miniUltraman]

Oh, I see the point of getting a full frame. Thank you, calebk for your very interesting and helpful points. I also want to thank USM for the info of the 2 outings.

But I still doubt something:
1/ Is the color produced from an L better than an EF-S? Although I will test myself, but I heard that the color of an L lens is better than a normal lens. Is it true?

2/ Is the build quality that important? Will that affect the durability of the lens? Meaning that is the L lens can be used for longer time than the normal time?

Thank you all of you again

Is build important? That is actually a personal preference. I love the L build... when you hold it on the hand.. it feels tough and solid... when u turn the zoom.. the friction is there.. ooooo.. shiok :lovegrin: I won't say the 17-55 has a lousy build.. it has pretty good build compare to the rest of the EFS (10-22 has equivalent good build too)... but the weight and the feel just seems to miss out something... and most importantly it has a high price tag :sweat: I would say the image quality is superb.. well.. it's your choice now

 

[miniUltraman]

You may want to think long term. This may not be the only lens you may get.
I would say get the 17-55 IS lens first, and for your next lens get the 70-200/70-300 lens.
Would work better than a 24-105 and 70-200. At least u will get your both your wide and tele end covered adequately.
24-105 is a lens more suitable for FF, much like the 17-55 is useful on a 1.6X crop (ie 28-88mm film equivalent). It was launched as the "kit lens" of EOS 5D.
To me a 24-105 on a 1.6X is not wide enuf, and not tele enuf. a 17-55 and 70-200 works wonders, no need any other zoom general street photography.

A 10-22mm and 24-105 may work fine too, but try out the 10-22 first because it has exaggerated perspective distortion and you may need some time to use it satisfactorily for "normal" street photography. Not suitable for portraits.

My take: 17-55mm F2.8 IS and 70-200 F4/ F2.8 IS (next purchase). Dream zoom combo

If you intend to get 10-22... my choice of a combo would be 10-22, 24-105, 70-200. To me the walkaround range is important and I prefer the longer end than wider. 105mm is very useful especially you want to shoot outdoor portrait.. I shoot alot of my kids when I am out.. so casual outing I usually just bring only 1 lens.. 24-105 :thumbsup: :thumbsup: and of cos' it is the L :lovegrin: factor

 

[BePositive]

Thank you for all your help
I just went to Cathay to try the two lenses. Hard to say but I prefer the 24-105

I also want to ask for your advise about this. Actually, I have a 17-40L and a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Is it worth to sell the above lenses to get the 24-105 or 17-55?

Thank you

 

[antacid]

do you shoot often in low-light, or indoor? i find the f/2.8 a great advantage. used the 17-55 for an event, and was very impressed with it. the build quality was shitty though. can't believe its 1.8k and feels like my kit lens!

YMMV!

 

[canoner]

I like the 24-105mm f4L IS lens. Ever since I bought it, I have shelved my 17-40mm f4L in my dry cabinet. I use the 24-105mm most of the time. I usually take photos of people (including candid shots, esp children). One thing though, it's not wide enough for my 20D, hence I got the 10-22mm lens to cover the wide angle range. This lens is also a great lens. Though there are barrel distortion at the wider end (great for 'special effects', aka fun shots), but it gets really good from 14mm onwards.

The 24-105mm is my favourite. It's sharp even at f4 and I love the colour. But when used indoors, the f4 is not able to stop motion, even with the IS. Hence to choose between 17-55mm f2.8IS and this lens depends very much on what you generally shoot. If your subjects are mostly static, my bet will be on the 24-105mm. The 105mm gives it the additional reach. I have thought of buying the 17-55mm before, but I just cannot bear to pay so much money for a non-L lens. =)

 

[Stratix]

my experience might not be very valid, but here's something i can tell you about focal lengths.

i used to think that the 70mm end of my 24-70 is great, because it's long enough before i switch to a 70-200. i too have a 10-22 so i thought my wide is well covered.

but NO!

i sold my 24-70 and got a tamron 17-50 2.8 because the 17mm wide end is SO SO important.

most of the time, i just want something wide, but not to the extent of dramatically wide. so 17mm fits in just nice - without changing lens.

what i'm trying to say is: while you might choose a 24-105 + a 10-22 combo, you NEED to factor in the fact that you will have to change lens often, which often good photo are missed because of this. =)

 

[miniUltraman]

Thank you for all your help
I just went to Cathay to try the two lenses. Hard to say but I prefer the 24-105

I also want to ask for your advise about this. Actually, I have a 17-40L and a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Is it worth to sell the above lenses to get the 24-105 or 17-55?

Thank you

I think you should keep your 17-40. That is a good range to cover events like wedding and group photos... :lovegrin:

 

[miniUltraman]

my experience might not be very valid, but here's something i can tell you about focal lengths.

i used to think that the 70mm end of my 24-70 is great, because it's long enough before i switch to a 70-200. i too have a 10-22 so i thought my wide is well covered.

but NO!

i sold my 24-70 and got a tamron 17-50 2.8 because the 17mm wide end is SO SO important.

most of the time, i just want something wide, but not to the extent of dramatically wide. so 17mm fits in just nice - without changing lens.

what i'm trying to say is: while you might choose a 24-105 + a 10-22 combo, you NEED to factor in the fact that you will have to change lens often, which often good photo are missed because of this. =)

I got to agree!! 17-50 is a good range 24-105 and 10-22 isn't enough.. you need 16-35 .. haha!!! :sweatsm:

 

[calebk]

my experience might not be very valid, but here's something i can tell you about focal lengths.

i used to think that the 70mm end of my 24-70 is great, because it's long enough before i switch to a 70-200. i too have a 10-22 so i thought my wide is well covered.

but NO!

i sold my 24-70 and got a tamron 17-50 2.8 because the 17mm wide end is SO SO important.

most of the time, i just want something wide, but not to the extent of dramatically wide. so 17mm fits in just nice - without changing lens.

what i'm trying to say is: while you might choose a 24-105 + a 10-22 combo, you NEED to factor in the fact that you will have to change lens often, which often good photo are missed because of this. =)

Mm. Very true. Thankfully I haven't been put in a situation where I find my lens limiting. If not...:devil:

 

[TYM76]

The 17-50/17-55/17-40 are very useful lens for cropped sensors as a general zoom lens.

The 10-22 is too difficult in usage due to distortion, and VERY wide

The 24-105 offers good range, but limited in wide angle.

If doing wedding photography, the 17-50/17-55/17-40 is the main generic zoom lens workhouse for crop sensors. For street photography, the 24-105 should be good enough, but you may feel it lacking on the wide side and MAY find it inadequate for certain scenery/architectural/landscape shots. You may want to try 10-22 to see if how often do you ever go SO wide. 22mm is still long enough and you may find that you have to change lens often.

The better solution is to get two lens as one lens may not be enough to cover adequately.
A 17-50/17-55/17-40 plus a 70-200 zoom would be good enough for crop sensors.

 

[BePositive]

Thanks for all of your helps

Reading through some review, I see that the 17-55 is actually sharper than the 24-105. Unbelievable:bigeyes:

However, I shoot in low light but not very often and used to set F5.6(at least)+ flash to get the DOF. I think the 24-105 is more suitable for me as I can get longer range. Moreover, I also intend to upgrade to 5D next year so need a full frame lens.

But really, I still always ask my self why should I go for full frame? Using 1.6X, I can get great lenses with cheaper price like 10-22 or 17-55 (actually sharper than 17-40 and 24-105). Knowing that DOF is different in a full frame cam but how much I can really appreciate it? Moreover, a full frame cam produce more distortion and so require better lens also. Then, after much calculation I see that full frame cam is just a waste of money as I always do things according to phrase "pay for what you can really see".

What do you guys think? Should I buy a full frame later or just stick with 1.6X body and the 17-55 IS? Please correct me if I am wrong at some points.

Thank a lot

 

[satay16]

Thanks for all of your helps

Reading through some review, I see that the 17-55 is actually sharper than the 24-105. Unbelievable:bigeyes:

However, I shoot in low light but not very often and used to set F5.6(at least)+ flash to get the DOF. I think the 24-105 is more suitable for me as I can get longer range. Moreover, I also intend to upgrade to 5D next year so need a full frame lens.

But really, I still always ask my self why should I go for full frame? Using 1.6X, I can get great lenses with cheaper price like 10-22 or 17-55 (actually sharper than 17-40 and 24-105). Knowing that DOF is different in a full frame cam but how much I can really appreciate it? Moreover, a full frame cam produce more distortion and so require better lens also. Then, after much calculation I see that full frame cam is just a waste of money as I always do things according to phrase "pay for what you can really see".

What do you guys think? Should I buy a full frame later or just stick with 1.6X body and the 17-55 IS? Please correct me if I am wrong at some points.

Thank a lot

btw, why you want to buy? i mean, 17-40 f4 with 28-75 2.8, i think that's a pretty good setup for the wide to semi-tele range already. the losses and costs you are incurring dun seem to be worth the IS, cos like what you said, you dun shoot low light often. i think that buying a macro lens or a tele lens is more worth it (assuming you dun have those ranges yet).

but if this is a BBB virus and you just have to buy something, i vote for 24-105. i dun think quality should be the first deciding factor of your lens. the first deciding factor should be focal length. if you wun use that focal length, no use having a top-notch quality lens. for your current interest in street photography, the 24-105 will be more useful.

but i still think it is best to spend the money in some other focal lengths. btw, what's your current lens lineup?

 

[miniUltraman]

Thanks for all of your helps

Reading through some review, I see that the 17-55 is actually sharper than the 24-105. Unbelievable:bigeyes:

However, I shoot in low light but not very often and used to set F5.6(at least)+ flash to get the DOF. I think the 24-105 is more suitable for me as I can get longer range. Moreover, I also intend to upgrade to 5D next year so need a full frame lens.

But really, I still always ask my self why should I go for full frame? Using 1.6X, I can get great lenses with cheaper price like 10-22 or 17-55 (actually sharper than 17-40 and 24-105). Knowing that DOF is different in a full frame cam but how much I can really appreciate it? Moreover, a full frame cam produce more distortion and so require better lens also. Then, after much calculation I see that full frame cam is just a waste of money as I always do things according to phrase "pay for what you can really see".

What do you guys think? Should I buy a full frame later or just stick with 1.6X body and the 17-55 IS? Please correct me if I am wrong at some points.

Thank a lot

I think you are comparing apple to orange.. 17-55 is f2.8 while 24-105 is f4. Moreover they have different focal length so can't compare sharpness that way unless you mean the focal length between 24-55 at f4 or smaller hole.

 

[pokiemon]

my advice is to keep both lens first. find out which lens you use more and sell the other if you think it is underutilised and if u need cash.

at the end of day, it really depends on what kind of pictures u take. e.g. if u r going to night safari, u will prob need the 24-105 (longer length and IS) more than your 17-40 and 17-50.