EF 24-105 f/4 vs EF-S 17-55 f/2.8
- Thread starter Halfmoon
- Start date
Halfmoon
Senior Member
Hi StoneFish,
Thanks for sharing
it is a great case study for reference but I am actually feeling lost after reading because I am not sure what should I be aiming for the next upgrade. A lens or body 1st? I do not have a great budget and will need to save really hard to buy something. If I am going to get a 60D, I will probably get the body 1st and save up for a better lens. Kit lens....hmmm I am not so sure.
Just spend within your means, and take it slow... if your concern is shooting your daughter under low light condition, then, get the body first.... Kit lens also can take decent picture, and I sincerely believe that the photographer is more important......
stonefish35
New Member
Hi StoneFish,
Thanks for sharing
it is a great case study for reference but I am actually feeling lost after reading because I am not sure what should I be aiming for the next upgrade. A lens or body 1st? I do not have a great budget and will need to save really hard to buy something. If I am going to get a 60D, I will probably get the body 1st and save up for a better lens. Kit lens....hmmm I am not so sure.
Bear, no matter what you will get ultimately, just remember that body is only 50% of the equation. Lens will be the other 50%. And if price is a concern, dun get the latest XX D brand new. Get the previous XX D model 2nd hand, the cost savings will be handy in getting a good lens . Cheers and have fun documenting the growing yrs of your daughter
enzeru21
New Member
actually i would say its body 30%, lens 25%, and person behind the camera 40% and post processing 5%...
and yes i'm all for getting the previous model to save $$...
SeldomHere
New Member
I have both lenses (EF-s 17-55 on 7D and EF24-105 on 5DmkII) and am very happy with both of them.
EF-S 17-55 - This lens is very sharp and if it had it not been an EF-S, I am sure it would be L worthy. Yes, the weather and dust proofing is not 100%, but the IQ is amazing. I have had this lens for about 8 months now and have put it through some pretty tough situations (beaches with wind, dusty streets, underground tunnels) and it is still working without fault. I religiously clean my lenses when I get back home or to the hotel so this may be part of the reason. The build quality is only just off that of the 24-105 L lens as both are engineering plastic and I am sure it would survive more than a knock or two in real-world situations.
EF 24-105 L - The lens is also very sharp when stopped slightly down and has a very useful range for walking about and traveling light. The build quality is plastic, but feels very sturdy and I have no doubts over the typical weather and dust proof qualities of this as an L lens.
I use the lenses exclusively for their purpose, EF-S on the cropped 7D and the EF L on the FF 5DmkII. On their respective bodies, they have a similar EFOV, with the EF-S being 27.2-88mm EFOV. The f/2.8 makes a big difference on the 7D and means being able to take shots in low light without flash, whereas I feel the 24-105 should have been f/2.8 instead of f/4. However, given the better low-light SNR of the FF 5DmkII, it is possible to get away with hand held low-light shots.
I disagree that FF is going to be mainstream within a couple of years, I think crop factor will always have it's place, even when sensors become cheaper to manufature (cheaper sensors = cheaper entry level cropped DSLRs or = more margin for DSLR manufacturers). FF will remain as a pro-body only for a good 2-3 years as far as I can see (why would they risk canibalising their pro market by offering cheaper FF models?). At least until they come out with a bigger better sensor to differentiate the pro range from the consumer DSLRs.
As such, If you are going to stick to cropped for the next couple of years (i.e. do not envisage moving to FF soon), then go for the 17-55mm.
If, however, you see yourself stepping up to FF, then go with the 24-105. Be aware that the EFOV of the 24-105 will become 38.4-168mm on a 1.6 crop body.
SeldomHere
EF-S 17-55 - This lens is very sharp and if it had it not been an EF-S, I am sure it would be L worthy. Yes, the weather and dust proofing is not 100%, but the IQ is amazing. I have had this lens for about 8 months now and have put it through some pretty tough situations (beaches with wind, dusty streets, underground tunnels) and it is still working without fault. I religiously clean my lenses when I get back home or to the hotel so this may be part of the reason. The build quality is only just off that of the 24-105 L lens as both are engineering plastic and I am sure it would survive more than a knock or two in real-world situations.
EF 24-105 L - The lens is also very sharp when stopped slightly down and has a very useful range for walking about and traveling light. The build quality is plastic, but feels very sturdy and I have no doubts over the typical weather and dust proof qualities of this as an L lens.
I use the lenses exclusively for their purpose, EF-S on the cropped 7D and the EF L on the FF 5DmkII. On their respective bodies, they have a similar EFOV, with the EF-S being 27.2-88mm EFOV. The f/2.8 makes a big difference on the 7D and means being able to take shots in low light without flash, whereas I feel the 24-105 should have been f/2.8 instead of f/4. However, given the better low-light SNR of the FF 5DmkII, it is possible to get away with hand held low-light shots.
I disagree that FF is going to be mainstream within a couple of years, I think crop factor will always have it's place, even when sensors become cheaper to manufature (cheaper sensors = cheaper entry level cropped DSLRs or = more margin for DSLR manufacturers). FF will remain as a pro-body only for a good 2-3 years as far as I can see (why would they risk canibalising their pro market by offering cheaper FF models?). At least until they come out with a bigger better sensor to differentiate the pro range from the consumer DSLRs.
As such, If you are going to stick to cropped for the next couple of years (i.e. do not envisage moving to FF soon), then go for the 17-55mm.
If, however, you see yourself stepping up to FF, then go with the 24-105. Be aware that the EFOV of the 24-105 will become 38.4-168mm on a 1.6 crop body.
SeldomHere
Good equation. But each person will put different percentage on each part. I personally will put 20% on body, 40% on lens, 20% on man, 20% on post processing(for the WOW)
stonefish35
New Member
Err, we are talking about the AF of body and lens in capturing TS's daughter.
Its another equation in capturing good photos....
Haha...Oops...have I just hijacked Halfmoon's thread? My story as become part of the discussion.
Actually I have developed a phobia for kit lens since the film SLR, they are slow and plasticky but I do know that the technology of lens has evolved over the years. I am perfectly fine with any lens when I was doing street photography but now having my daughter as my primary photography subject, I think the F2.8 and USM will be handy for me.
Nope I do not have a flash....and in fact my 400D does not belong to me too, I have borrowed from my sister for like more than a year. I only own the 50mm F1.4 and the film cameras.
stonefish35
New Member
picturethis
New Member
both are great lens! buy either n have fun!
stonefish35
New Member
If I'm still on my 40D, I will choose the 17-55mm over the 24-105mm. 24mm = 38.4mm on a APSC body, too tight for indoor shooting.
On a FF, you can't fit the 17-55mm without "minor surgery" on the lens. Even with that, at 17mm of this lens on a FF, you will get bad vignetting.
So how to buy either and have fun ? Need to see intended usage is on which body, else buy liao do not enjoy the new lens, end up bang balls.
Halfmoon
Senior Member
Good suggestion Bro... that can save a bit of money.. body price does drop much more than lens.... :thumbsup:
Halfmoon
Senior Member
Seldom see you here....
I think you have a great combo... 5D & 7D and the lens combo....
Still.... I think after getting the gears... must remember to go and shoot more....
Thanks for your sharing....
Halfmoon
Senior Member
I am ok with Hijacker..... this is karma for me... since I have hijacked almost any thread in any forum I have been.... :bsmilie::bsmilie:
Halfmoon
Senior Member
F2.8 and USM is handy for you only if you have them on the right body... on a old body, and low light, the problem will still persist... I was thinking you could use a flash to help you focus..... :think:
Halfmoon
Senior Member
Depend on shooter and style too... like I mentioned.... I do not shoot 28mm much, and I personally like 35mm FOV... so I can use a 24-105 on my 400D without any major issue... But I went for F 2.8...... I now got a very bad addiction... and am drooling at the 70-200mm F2.8 now.... WTF... but I need a body next.... saving and waiting for bonuses.....
Halfmoon
Senior Member
Enzeru... I think you did not catch ball here... We are talking about 50% of the Auto focus issue is the lens and 50% is the AF in the camera body.....
stonefish35
New Member
Depend on shooter and style too... like I mentioned.... I do not shoot 28mm much, and I personally like 35mm FOV... so I can use a 24-105 on my 400D without any major issue... But I went for F 2.8...... I now got a very bad addiction... and am drooling at the 70-200mm F2.8 now.... WTF... but I need a body next.... saving and waiting for bonuses.....
Haha bro, once the F2.8 bites you, you will only want to get F1.8 , F1.4 etc... have fun. I loved the 2.8 on the 17-55.. so fast, so sharp so gooood....
Similar threads
