Which lens, 17-55f2.8 or 24-105L or 24-70L

[Ren_Hao]

Guys,

Thanks for all the input. I will be going down to get a 24-105L later during lunch. :bsmilie:

I think I will still need the longer reach at 105 more than the wider end at 17. The 17-55 is great but maybe I will just get a 10-22 much much much later as I too love that lens after playing with my friends copy some time back.

 

[zerartul]

Actually the best part of 17-55 is the F2.8 and coupled with IS you can do quite shooting using available light considering canon has no primes with IS. If you dont intend intend for FF personally think that 17-55 is still better lol unless you really want the reach which 24-105 can provide.

 

[cg171s]

Just got my 24-70
So now I have both 24-70 and 24-105 hehehe..
for walk around, I prefer 24-105 because in daylight you don't really need the 2.8 and the longer zoom is helpful if you want to get that "candid shots" :bsmilie:

 

[faisalee]

Just got my 24-70
So now I have both 24-70 and 24-105 hehehe..
for walk around, I prefer 24-105 because in daylight you don't really need the 2.8 and the longer zoom is helpful if you want to get that "candid shots"

Cool man :thumbsup:

I tried 24-105 at John 3:16 today on my 40D but too soft, 24-70 was much much better. Then finally I tried the 17-55! :bigeyes: Amazing sharpness and beauty... I returned back with one :angel:

 

[blurboiboi]

Cool man :thumbsup:

I tried 24-105 at John 3:16 today on my 40D but too soft, 24-70 was much much better. Then finally I tried the 17-55! :bigeyes: Amazing sharpness and beauty... I returned back with one :angel:

how much you paid for it??.. after the px reduction island wide

 

[faisalee]

how much you paid for it??.. after the px reduction island wide

$1360 if I remember correctly :think:

 

[zerartul]

17-55 May not be L graded but it can easily produce L grade style quality images.

 

[Redkangoo]

$1360 if I remember correctly :think:

Good Price for a superb lens, mass order from HK also cost 1.3K and local warranty extend 3 more months.....

 

[engrmariano]

2.8 + IS + USM
HELL YEAH!!!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[lennyl]

Thanks for all the input. I will be going down to get a 24-105L later during lunch. :bsmilie:

I think I will still need the longer reach at 105 more than the wider end at 17. The 17-55 is great but maybe I will just get a 10-22 much much much later as I too love that lens after playing with my friends copy some time back.

That's exactly what I ended up with after agonizing on same choice a year ago. The 24-105 is sometimes not wide enough, but most of my photos are outdoors, and I need a longer zoom more often than a wide angle. Having to swap between the 10-22 and the 24-105 is a pain sometimes. I wish I also have the 17-55 for indoors.

 

[thinkvision]

EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS (450D) sharper than nikon DX 17-55/2.8G (D300) , also the price just about 65% of nikon's one...

 

[getg3]

Good choice Ren_hao, last year I upgraded my walkabout lens from EFs 17-85 to 24-105L. It's on my 20d now most of the time. To cover the wider end I have EFs 10-22.

 

[cg171s]

Cool man :thumbsup:

I tried 24-105 at John 3:16 today on my 40D but too soft, 24-70 was much much better. Then finally I tried the 17-55! :bigeyes: Amazing sharpness and beauty... I returned back with one :angel:

hmmm.. So the result from 17-55 is better than both the 24-105 & 24-70?
I know the 17-55 is a good lens but honestly I expect both 24-105 & 24-70 will be better due to their "pro grade" status :sweat:

 

[faisalee]

hmmm.. So the result from 17-55 is better than both the 24-105 & 24-70?
I know the 17-55 is a good lens but honestly I expect both 24-105 & 24-70 will be better due to their "pro grade" status :sweat:

Pro-grade status... yeah true but 17-55 was sharper than the 24-70 & 24-105 I tested at the store... The color / contrast & IS its all worth every cent if you ask me!!!!

Easily the BEST lens I have ever tried!

 

[alvinpaul]

I suggest 24-105 which is a very good walk around lens, specially if you plan to upgrade to FF later

 

[santaclaus2100]

I am using the 17-55mm, fantastic lens.

Pity I bought it on 3rd July for $1,500. But then I had fun shooting with it, so anyway.... even though price drop.

The f/2.8 on the 17-55 makes it an amazing lens, very clear and the colours really come through.

 

[boyetblas]

I think the best walk-around lens would be the 24-105L IS, especially as a travel lens for my 1Ds Mk3. There is really no substitute since the IS is so important you'll never know who'll or what'll you bump into (literally and figuratively ), the f/4 is just perfect for the background where you don't want it to be hidden in travel memorabilia photos. The pics always turn out crisp, sharp, and vibrant. Not to mention it's light. I brought this lens with me to Japan during the cherry blossoms season last March 30 and here's 2 of my pics using the 24-105L IS:

There are more photos in my website at boyetblas.com or going directly to my Japan gallery at
http://www.mabuhaybeauties.com/boyets/list.php?exhibition=12&ee_lang=eng

Promise, you'll have no regrets with the 24-105L IS, be it FF or otherwise. I also bought the 24-70L a month ago for my other purpose like pictorial shoots and it's working out wonderfully! The non-IS feature of this lens + 300 gms or so heavier kinda limit itself in being categorized as a "great" walk-around lens or general purpose lens and even in low light I always feel I might miss rather than hit. At any rate, good luck in your decision.

 

[hammie]

I was going to plan for 17-55mm and decided to rent one out to try but no lens on hand so the next best thing is the 24-105. I was blown by the the range and the versatility of it. Now I am leaning toward the 24-105 now. Still considering the pro and con on both the lens.

 

[chris]

Just came back from a short trip. I had the 17-55 with 40D. The lens was amazing and especially the 2.8 and IS feature was the most valuable.

 

[cg171s]

just to add more things in the mix.
I would say that all three lenses are super great lenses, you won't go wrong choosing any of those three.
It mostly depends on your "style of shooting"....
for example, for me I prefer the 24-105 because it has longer reach which suits me because I tend to crop my photos tight (meaning the longer zoom is more useful than the wide angle)

just my 2 cents, hopefully it doesn't confuse you more :bsmilie: