EF 24-105 f/4 vs EF-S 17-55 f/2.8

[nottipiglet]

Original intention for the 2 lenses are different... but you said both "serve as a general purpose lens".... hahaha.... that is confusing.....

Then let me clarify...

The 17-55's purpose is to serve as a general purpose lens for a 1.6x crop camera.
The 24-105's purpose is to serve as a general purpose lens for a FF camera.
I use purpose, from the perspective of the lens designer... and hence your confusion. But it should be clear now, right?

 

[nottipiglet]

I think 17-55 vs 24-105 common dilemma is if go FF... one of my concern... plus I am fine with 35mm FOV onward lens... and F4, but I supplement them with my primes... so..... what are the advantage and disadvantage.... different user, different style, and so.... it can be more than range issue alone.... which user has to decide... the 17-55 is suppose to be much sharper, and offers more than 24-105.. but lack the range, the build quality, hood, case.....

I think it is quite simple. If you have a 1.6x crop camera, then get the 17-55mm. If you have FF camera, then get the 24-105mm (think it comes as a kit for FF cameras).

I won't fuss too much about the build quality of the 17-55. It is built decently. Not L quality, but very decent. In fact, I prefer it this way. If it were built like an L lens, it will be heavier and costs more, while the optical quality probably cannot improve further because it is a damn good lens already. Also, I don't like to use the lens hood. I use my left hand to block out the sun on those few occasions I need to. Hence the 17-55 is perfect for me. But if you need a lens hood, then just buy the 'cheong' version. It is very cheap and pretty much does the same job.

If you compare it with the Nikon 17-55, the Canon one has a far better value proposition. The Nikon lens is built solid as a tank, costs more, comes with the hood, etc... but the optical quality is not as good.

So... everyone is asking... what if I upgrade to FF in the future? If you need FF, then upgrade to FF now. Why wait? The 5D MkII is such a well made FF camera, why bother with the the 7D, 60D, 550D, etc... if you need the FF capability? I choose a 1.6x camera because I like the size and weight of the 550D, and I am happy with the 1.6x crop sensor's capability. FF is nice, but not necessary. If it is not necessary now, it is unlikely that it will become necessary in the near future. Plus... sensor technology will continue to improve. When they make a better FF sensor, they will also probably make a better 1.6x crop sensor. If I am happy with the 1.6x sensor now, I will be happier with the future version. In short, only you can decide what you need... and if you cannot decide which camera you need, then you probably also cannot decide which lens you need.

But I have a suggestion... when in doubt, go for the cheaper option.

 

[Halfmoon]

Then let me clarify...

The 17-55's purpose is to serve as a general purpose lens for a 1.6x crop camera.
The 24-105's purpose is to serve as a general purpose lens for a FF camera.
I use purpose, from the perspective of the lens designer... and hence your confusion. But it should be clear now, right?

Hi bro... I was just teasing you only la... I know what you meant.... ;p

But at the end of the day..... it is a heavy investment, and most people try to avoid making mistake when buying...... be it 1.6 or FF.... so some might think of before and after FF situation... as you know... Singaporean kia su mah..... :bsmilie:

 

[enzeru21]

So... everyone is asking... what if I upgrade to FF in the future? If you need FF, then upgrade to FF now. Why wait? The 5D MkII is such a well made FF camera, why bother with the the 7D, 60D, 550D, etc... if you need the FF capability? I choose a 1.6x camera because I like the size and weight of the 550D, and I am happy with the 1.6x crop sensor's capability. FF is nice, but not necessary. If it is not necessary now, it is unlikely that it will become necessary in the near future. Plus... sensor technology will continue to improve. When they make a better FF sensor, they will also probably make a better 1.6x crop sensor. If I am happy with the 1.6x sensor now, I will be happier with the future version. In short, only you can decide what you need... and if you cannot decide which camera you need, then you probably also cannot decide which lens you need.

But I have a suggestion... when in doubt, go for the cheaper option.

well said... :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

totally agree with the first two statements!!

 

[Halfmoon]

I think it is quite simple. If you have a 1.6x crop camera, then get the 17-55mm. If you have FF camera, then get the 24-105mm (think it comes as a kit for FF cameras).

I won't fuss too much about the build quality of the 17-55. It is built decently. Not L quality, but very decent. In fact, I prefer it this way. If it were built like an L lens, it will be heavier and costs more, while the optical quality probably cannot improve further because it is a damn good lens already. Also, I don't like to use the lens hood. I use my left hand to block out the sun on those few occasions I need to. Hence the 17-55 is perfect for me. But if you need a lens hood, then just buy the 'cheong' version. It is very cheap and pretty much does the same job.

If you compare it with the Nikon 17-55, the Canon one has a far better value proposition. The Nikon lens is built solid as a tank, costs more, comes with the hood, etc... but the optical quality is not as good.

So... everyone is asking... what if I upgrade to FF in the future? If you need FF, then upgrade to FF now. Why wait? The 5D MkII is such a well made FF camera, why bother with the the 7D, 60D, 550D, etc... if you need the FF capability? I choose a 1.6x camera because I like the size and weight of the 550D, and I am happy with the 1.6x crop sensor's capability. FF is nice, but not necessary. If it is not necessary now, it is unlikely that it will become necessary in the near future. Plus... sensor technology will continue to improve. When they make a better FF sensor, they will also probably make a better 1.6x crop sensor. If I am happy with the 1.6x sensor now, I will be happier with the future version. In short, only you can decide what you need... and if you cannot decide which camera you need, then you probably also cannot decide which lens you need.

But I have a suggestion... when in doubt, go for the cheaper option.

The price diff is less than $100.... so not really much diff.... so that''s why people will try to avoid buying the wrong item...... the heavy investment in lens is not like some worth $5... you buy and use and throw...... So people willl try to be more cautious and ask for opinion.....

I have decided to get 17-55mm..... this lens is suppose to edge 24-105 in picture quality, and I think I will go 7D in future.... so till FF become mainstream..... this would be my default main lens..... for a long time....... and I still have my eyes on this 24-105...... but at a later time......

 

[Goenitz2009]

I still think FF is still not so common now..... it is increasing, but still not the common mainstream yet... and Canon 7D seems to indicate that this segment is here to stay....

FF could be common in 5-10 yrs time... and Canon development in APS-H format, and FF... plus the competitor, like Nikon, Sony.... all so hungry and aggressive...... EF-S could have even limited market......

When FF is so common, EF-S lens will drop value, as crop is budget segment and the price anyone pay for 17-55 now could be difficult to recover even 50%.....

17-55 range is not the problem... and a FF F2.8 will cost much much more.... Canon 24-70 is like $2.4K without IS... if they release with IS, that will be like.... $3K.... so 17-55 F2.8 still have a slight advantage..... in some sense.....

I think you are contradicting yourself a little when you said FF is still not so common now.. First I did not mention it is common now.. Then you said in 5-10 years time it will be.

The point is, for 5-10 years, how much will you lose by buying 17-55? Instead you might lose thousands of picture opportunities by not getting the 17-55. This is assuming you don't have other equivalent focal length lenses.

 

[Halfmoon]

I think you are contradicting yourself a little when you said FF is still not so common now.. First I did not mention it is common now.. Then you said in 5-10 years time it will be.

The point is, for 5-10 years, how much will you lose by buying 17-55? Instead you might lose thousands of picture opportunities by not getting the 17-55. This is assuming you don't have other equivalent focal length lenses.

Mmm.... maybe I was thinking more like I want to move to FF, but yet.... I am unwilling to pay for it now.... and I think 5-10 yrs, FF will be more into the main stream...... this is just my estimate for FF to be main stream, and the rate the competition in the DSLR market is going... the fire is burning even more hot.... especially I find that Sony is really aggressive...

I do have a 17-40 as a main lens now.... and I also have some primes, so I can go without F2.8 as primes is lower...... so for me, it is a f2.8 vs F4, range issue, 17-55 vs 24-105....

But after viewing some test results... the 17-55 is better on a crop cam.... and beside built, the F2.8 zoom is a useful features against primes.... so I thought I would go for the 17-55 instead....

 

[nottipiglet]

The price diff is less than $100.... so not really much diff.... so that''s why people will try to avoid buying the wrong item...... the heavy investment in lens is not like some worth $5... you buy and use and throw...... So people willl try to be more cautious and ask for opinion.....

I have decided to get 17-55mm..... this lens is suppose to edge 24-105 in picture quality, and I think I will go 7D in future.... so till FF become mainstream..... this would be my default main lens..... for a long time....... and I still have my eyes on this 24-105...... but at a later time......

Both lenses have good resale value, so it's not like you throw them away if you don't like them. I have actually bought a pre-owned 70-200 f/4 L IS and sold it at a slight profit after deciding that I don't really need it.

As for losing out... I think you will lose out more if you buy a lens that does not really fit your need given your current set-up... because you are considering your future possible set-up, which may not eventually materialise.

So... the 17-55 is the right choice in my opinion. It's a beautiful lens. Two years ago, I was using the 17-85. One day, I walked into Cathay with some friends, and I asked the shop if I can try the 17-55. All I needed was a couple of test shots... and I was absolutely sold. It is definitely my favorite lens.

 

[nottipiglet]

I think you are contradicting yourself a little when you said FF is still not so common now.. First I did not mention it is common now.. Then you said in 5-10 years time it will be.

The point is, for 5-10 years, how much will you lose by buying 17-55? Instead you might lose thousands of picture opportunities by not getting the 17-55. This is assuming you don't have other equivalent focal length lenses.

Actually, I think FF is pretty common now. It is not mainstream, but none-the-less common.

 

[Halfmoon]

Both lenses have good resale value, so it's not like you throw them away if you don't like them. I have actually bought a pre-owned 70-200 f/4 L IS and sold it at a slight profit after deciding that I don't really need it.

As for losing out... I think you will lose out more if you buy a lens that does not really fit your need given your current set-up... because you are considering your future possible set-up, which may not eventually materialise.

So... the 17-55 is the right choice in my opinion. It's a beautiful lens. Two years ago, I was using the 17-85. One day, I walked into Cathay with some friends, and I asked the shop if I can try the 17-55. All I needed was a couple of test shots... and I was absolutely sold. It is definitely my favorite lens.

I think the 70-200mm range is not really a requirement for most of us since that is a bit long and you should have bought it before the price hike I suppose and this does not happen frequent... Now, the yen is rising, the lens price could go up soon too....

Actually, I am certain both will fit my range.... that's why I was in a dilemma... shooting in lower light won this... plus IS... and IQ...... After I get this, my other issue is slow AF of 400D.... and that will be another upgrade the next round.....

I suppose you have since sold the 17-85mm........

Thank you for your sharing bro!!

 

[Halfmoon]

Also, I like to ask if anyone here have any complain of dust getting into the 17-55mm???? This is one main complain that I am aware....... :dunno:

 

[neech7]

the optical quality probably cannot improve further because it is a damn good lens already.

That's what a lot of people said about the 70-200 2.8 Mark I when the Mark II was announced. Then the Mark II reviews start coming in and all of a sudden the Mark I is 'not that good'. :bsmilie:

 

[catchlights]

typo error on thread title corrected for easy browsing and future search.

 

[2evans]

Also, I like to ask if anyone here have any complain of dust getting into the 17-55mm???? This is one main complain that I am aware....... :dunno:

Don't have a problem with dust in my copy of 17-55.

 

[Halfmoon]

typo error on thread title corrected for easy browsing and future search.

Thanks catchlights... I wanted to amend the title, but did not find the place to amend it.....

 

[catchlights]

Thanks catchlights... I wanted to amend the title, but did not find the place to amend it.....

you are welcome.

for editing thread title, you need to PM the mods of the respective section to do it for you. eg, look out the moderators listed below of the Canon section.

 

[Halfmoon]

you are welcome.

for editing thread title, you need to PM the mods of the respective section to do it for you. eg, look out the moderators listed below of the Canon section.

OK catchy.... got it!!!

 

[zarray]

I have both the tamron 17-50 F2.8 and canon 24-105 F4.

Although the tamron is no comparison to the 17-55, what i feel is that the range makes it nice for street shooting or events shooting. Some people say that the F2.8 aperture makes it a decent portraiture lens but personally i find the bokeh of the 24-105 more diffused.

For myself, i find the range of the 24-105 more versatile especially with its ability to zoom up close. 17mm on crop will not be wide enough if you intend on taking pictures of buildings or dramatic landscapes.

As for F4 vs F2.8, it really depends on what you're shooting. For me, I keep my 580EX around me all the time so F4 is no issue.

Soon i will be selling off the 17-50 and probably get a canon 10-22 to compliment the 24-105

 

[nottipiglet]

Also, I like to ask if anyone here have any complain of dust getting into the 17-55mm???? This is one main complain that I am aware....... :dunno:

The 17-55mm is not a weather-sealed lens. Plus, if you notice the design of the lens... the front extends and retracts as you adjust the zoom. There is a gap at this point, where dust can get in. So, if you extend and retract the zoom a lot, some dust will inevitably get in. This is true for canon non-L lenses where the front element extends when zooming, and not just this lens. However, we all know that it takes quite a lot of dust at the lens to affect the IQ of the lens. Those people who complain about the dust under the lens are:

a) Lens collectors... who spend more time sayanging their lens than taking pictures.
b) Lens traders... who will scrutinise the dust and use them as a bargaining chip.
c) Professional photographers who use the lens in harsh environments... like the dessert.

For the rest of us, so what if some dust gets in? We can always send to Canon service centre, spend a bit of money, and get it serviced... and we only do it once in a long long while. After which, the lens will be clean again. The fact that it is not an L lens, also mean that servicing is cheaper. L lenses cost a bomb to service... so unless you really need the build of the L, it is more economical to buy a non-L. I am actually very happy that Canon did not make this lens an L. Else, I will have to pay more for it, possibly lug around more weight, and it costs more to service.

btw... I'm sure I have some dust in my lens, but I have not checked it for dust... Why? Simply because the lens continues to help me take nice pictures, which is the main reason I have this lens. I do not care if there is some dust in it... do you?

 

[Jackle]

the 24-105 also extends and retracts when I zoom in and out. however I like the reach of the 105mm on the 24-105 against the 55mm provided by the 17-55.

the price of the 24-105 is also slightly cheaper in B&S section of Clubsnap, averaging SGD1250 against SGD1300 for 17-55mm