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

[Halfmoon]

Maybe you should review all your pics taken, how many is less than 24mm? are you wide shooter or teleshooter?
Or just get 70-200mm F4/F2.8 to cover the range...

I have a 70-200mm F4 to cover the range....

It is the upgrade from 17-40 that I am in a dilemma........ 24-105 and 17-55...... No doubt if I shoot event, I can escape with a flash, and F4..... 24 could be long in some cases..... depending on the venue.....

55mm is much shorter than the 105mm and it is 2 times....

I have a few primes, and they could complement the F4 and in low light, F2.8 might not necessary be enough.:think:

 

[hansgalaxy]

I would go for the 24-70 F/2.8L instead. Lesser Distortion than 24-105 F/4L and a faster lens.

Once you go FF, dump the 17-40 F4L and get the 16-36 F2.8L (If you always shoot low light + WA shots) For 24-70 is more for a walk about lens, F/2.8 is a great advantage

 

[Fapic]

I'm sorry for hijacking this thread a little,
but:

im as well deciding between the 24-105 & the 17-55.

an owner of the 7D, and having a 50mm prime, i was leaning towards the 24-105.
however, many have concluded[as far as ive read] that the 24 on a cropped may not be wide enough.

i generally take portraits[which are more or less settled with my 50mm], and sometimes just some daily objects etcetc.
my purpose on a new lens would largely be a walk around all purpose lens, or outdoors ill say.
also, during some events or just get togethers with friends, taking a group photo with my prime would be a difficulty.

i do have the kit lens with me, 18-135mm.
but the IQ isnt anything great, and IQ to me is an important factor - leading to now where my kit lens is rotting in my cabinet

the 24-105 provides a rather good medium telephoto, and the price doesnt differ much from the 17-55 despite its "L" label.
and definitely a possibility for me going FF in future.

so, would it be a bad choice should i decide on the 24-105?
or would there be other lenses i should consider, or opt for the 17-55?

 

[Halfmoon]

I would go for the 24-70 F/2.8L instead. Lesser Distortion than 24-105 F/4L and a faster lens.

Once you go FF, dump the 17-40 F4L and get the 16-36 F2.8L (If you always shoot low light + WA shots) For 24-70 is more for a walk about lens, F/2.8 is a great advantage

I think the price of 2470mm is much more than 24-105 and 17-55 and that's out of my budget for now.....

I think if low light, F2.8 is not so enough actually at times, and I think that the IS will be the crucial factor in this..... No doubt that the 24-70 is a great lens, but bearing in mind, the weight is a big difference..... I have no problem shooting 35mm +++ since I am used to it anyway....

Anyway.. thanks for sharing.....

 

[Halfmoon]

I'm sorry for hijacking this thread a little,
but:

im as well deciding between the 24-105 & the 17-55.

an owner of the 7D, and having a 50mm prime, i was leaning towards the 24-105.
however, many have concluded[as far as ive read] that the 24 on a cropped may not be wide enough.

i generally take portraits[which are more or less settled with my 50mm], and sometimes just some daily objects etcetc.
my purpose on a new lens would largely be a walk around all purpose lens, or outdoors ill say.
also, during some events or just get togethers with friends, taking a group photo with my prime would be a difficulty.

i do have the kit lens with me, 18-135mm.
but the IQ isnt anything great, and IQ to me is an important factor - leading to now where my kit lens is rotting in my cabinet

the 24-105 provides a rather good medium telephoto, and the price doesnt differ much from the 17-55 despite its "L" label.
and definitely a possibility for me going FF in future.

so, would it be a bad choice should i decide on the 24-105?
or would there be other lenses i should consider, or opt for the 17-55?

No worry... it is on same subject and we all are thinking of the same problem.... which lens to buy between the two..... it is also dependant on the type of photography you shoots.... no simple solution to this......

 

[pattanct]

I'm sorry for hijacking this thread a little,
but:

im as well deciding between the 24-105 & the 17-55.

an owner of the 7D, and having a 50mm prime, i was leaning towards the 24-105.
however, many have concluded[as far as ive read] that the 24 on a cropped may not be wide enough.

i generally take portraits[which are more or less settled with my 50mm], and sometimes just some daily objects etcetc.
my purpose on a new lens would largely be a walk around all purpose lens, or outdoors ill say.
also, during some events or just get togethers with friends, taking a group photo with my prime would be a difficulty.

i do have the kit lens with me, 18-135mm.
but the IQ isnt anything great, and IQ to me is an important factor - leading to now where my kit lens is rotting in my cabinet

the 24-105 provides a rather good medium telephoto, and the price doesnt differ much from the 17-55 despite its "L" label.
and definitely a possibility for me going FF in future.

so, would it be a bad choice should i decide on the 24-105?
or would there be other lenses i should consider, or opt for the 17-55?

50mm too tight, i reckon you shld go 24-105 way....then get a 35f2 for low light condition

 

[Fapic]

50mm too tight, i reckon you shld go 24-105 way....then get a 35f2 for low light condition

I'm currently having a 50mm 1.2 to be specific.
I won't be having much luck selling this lens for I've lost the receipt

And in any case, my prime has really served me well *only* for the problem of taking group photos.
So I'm thinking my prime can stick with me.

On a slight note, I'm looking for a new lens cause I've been contemplating on getting a lens for an all purpose. And since I'm heading to a few countries the next few coming months, I thought ill just get a lens that will suit my needs

But man, thanks for your advice!

Cheers

 

[gazkw]

I'm currently having a 50mm 1.2 to be specific.
I won't be having much luck selling this lens for I've lost the receipt

doubt it will be an issue as long as its out of warranty.

 

[Fapic]

doubt it will be an issue as long as its out of warranty.

Nope warranty's still valid bro.

 

[driveanegg]

If supplemented by primes, the f2.8 is not such an issue anymore.

Do go to flickr and look at groups which showcases pictures taken with the 24-105mm. I would agree, the distortion at 24mm is horrible, but its nothing incurable with DPP. I suppose if shooting events, the question would be how far you like to stand from the subjects... closer go for 17-55mm, further go for 24-105mm.

Happy shopping !!!

 

[gazkw]

Nope warranty's still valid bro.

even easier to sell if you registered the warranty

 

[Halfmoon]

If supplemented by primes, the f2.8 is not such an issue anymore.

Do go to flickr and look at groups which showcases pictures taken with the 24-105mm. I would agree, the distortion at 24mm is horrible, but its nothing incurable with DPP. I suppose if shooting events, the question would be how far you like to stand from the subjects... closer go for 17-55mm, further go for 24-105mm.

Happy shopping !!!

Thanks for your sharing.... I think by now, I more or less have an idea what I will be going for......

And also, thanks to all bro who had shared your opinion here.....

 

[neech7]

there's a bit of overlapping.

What's wrong with overlap in focal range in one's lens collection? And what's wrong with a little gap?

I hope people don't lose sleep because their 24-70 and 70-200 overlap at 70mm.

 

[enzeru21]

What's wrong with overlap in focal range in one's lens collection? And what's wrong with a little gap?

I hope people don't lose sleep because their 24-70 and 70-200 overlap at 70mm.

HAHAHAH~!! :bsmilie::bsmilie:

then how? sell which one? and buy what to replace??

 

[Fapic]

Just to check/confirm, 24-105 pricing is ~16XX?

 

[nottipiglet]

Actually, the original intention of the 2 lenses are quite different.

The 17-55 is a very good general purpose lens for the 1.6x crop. It achieves a nice bokeh at f/2.8, so it takes very nice portraits amongst other things.

The 24-105 is meant to serve roughly the same purpose for the full frame camera... a very good general purpose lens. At f/4 on the full frame, it should achieve about the same bokeh as the 17-55 on 1.6x crop.

While you can put the 24-105 on the 1.6x crop, it is not that optimal as a general purpose lens... particularly at that price. f/4 on the 1.6x crop does not give sufficiently nice bokeh in most circumstances. While 105mm gives you more range, the 24mm can be quite limiting on the wide end for a general purpose lens.

 

[Goenitz2009]

If I'm not wrong the 17-55 was released at a time when FF was not very common. It was meant to fill in the 1.6x market due to demand from users, and complaints about 17-85 and its slow aperture.

But now:

Things are different and we will get people with this dilemma. 17-55 or 17-40? If 17-55, what will happen if I go FF?

I guess the answer lies in yourself. How soon are you going to FF? If not you can buy a USED 17-55, so you won't lose much. And sell it when you ready for FF.

PS: 17-55 is equivalent to 27-88mm on 35mm format. That is the most useful range for a general purpose usage.

 

[Halfmoon]

Just to check/confirm, 24-105 pricing is ~16XX?

Yes... it is $16XX++ depending on shop.... Yen just went up so maybe it could rises....

 

[Halfmoon]

If I'm not wrong the 17-55 was released at a time when FF was not very common. It was meant to fill in the 1.6x market due to demand from users, and complaints about 17-85 and its slow aperture.

But now:

Things are different and we will get people with this dilemma. 17-55 or 17-40? If 17-55, what will happen if I go FF?

I guess the answer lies in yourself. How soon are you going to FF? If not you can buy a USED 17-55, so you won't lose much. And sell it when you ready for FF.

PS: 17-55 is equivalent to 27-88mm on 35mm format. That is the most useful range for a general purpose usage.

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.....

 

[Halfmoon]

Actually, the original intention of the 2 lenses are quite different.

The 17-55 is a very good general purpose lens for the 1.6x crop. It achieves a nice bokeh at f/2.8, so it takes very nice portraits amongst other things.

The 24-105 is meant to serve roughly the same purpose for the full frame camera... a very good general purpose lens. At f/4 on the full frame, it should achieve about the same bokeh as the 17-55 on 1.6x crop.

While you can put the 24-105 on the 1.6x crop, it is not that optimal as a general purpose lens... particularly at that price. f/4 on the 1.6x crop does not give sufficiently nice bokeh in most circumstances. While 105mm gives you more range, the 24mm can be quite limiting on the wide end for a general purpose lens.

Original intention for the 2 lenses are different... but you said both "serve as a general purpose lens".... hahaha.... that is confusing..... and I think the general purpose lens is why people have some queries in their decision making....

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.....