17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 4 5 end

Archive 2008 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

danmitchell
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

dhphoto:

Your points make sense regarding the alternatives, which I understand quite a few people do like. I just think that your description of the 17-55 as a "ripoff" is a bit of hyperbole. From a photographic perspective, if I shot crop (as opposed to cr@p... ;-) I'd sure take it over the 17-40 or the 16-35 for most purposes.

YMMV

Dan

Aug 21, 2008 at 04:42 PM

dhphoto
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

The cheapest UK price for a 17-55IS (via Camera Price buster) is GBP599.00, or approximately USD1,140.00.

That is a ripoff for a non-L, averagely made EF-S zoom in my estimation. And you don't even get a hood.

To compare, the 24-105L can be had for GBP10.00 less (which I think is still expensive)

It's just not worth that IMHO

David

Aug 21, 2008 at 04:50 PM

cubik
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

I have a love/hate relationship with my EF-S 17-55. My main frustration is that it is not long enough on my 40D. I find myself shooting more and more head-and-shoulder portraits and to pull that off with the 17-55 you have to get close. Normally not a problem, but friends and family find the lens+hood is intimidating and you can sense the unease as I move close for a quick candid. Because of this I have often thought of selling it.

Then I take it into an art gallery and fall in love all over again! The low light performance of this lens is outstanding, especially in places where tripods are not permitted. And here in DC, there are a LOT of places that do not permit tripods, from government buildings to museums to national monuments.

Because of the low-light versatility, I would recommend the 17-55. If you are still unsure about whether the 24-105 is the better choice, shoot with the 17-55 at 24mm @ f/4 for a couple of weeks. If you find that you're not desiring to go wider than 24mm, the aperture isn't too restrictive, and you really need to go longer, you can always sell it for a small loss and pick up the 24-105.

As for me, I bought a 85mm 1.8 for portraits, which solved my "do you mind not sticking that big thing in my face" problem.

Chris

Aug 21, 2008 at 04:57 PM

Dark_
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

It all comes down to how you use the lens. For me i got the 17-55 when it first came out and paid like 1700$CDN. Have gotten a lot of use out of it and the build compared to other lenses in my kit is good. Sure it is not as solid as my 70-200 and it was almost as much as it, but still has taken a beating and is still taking good photos.

Aug 21, 2008 at 05:01 PM

twistedlim
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

17 is not wide enough for me on a crop body so I would have take a 10-22 with me anyway so I would opt for the 24-105. More range with the 10-22, and for me sharper and better contrast. The 17-... zooms really dont do anything for me.

Aug 21, 2008 at 05:37 PM

BrianO
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM is an expensive lens, not doubt about it; but in my opinion the price/value ratio makes it well worth the price.

Is it more expensive than some L-series lenses? Yes. But you're getting a wider aperture, really good glass, and image stabilization for those extra dollars. Right now, nothing else compares.

For some, the faster aperture and IS aren't worth the extra money, but for others it might be.

Some have questioned the need for IS on a short tele lens, but again it's a case of specifics. A few years ago I was shooting the wildlife at Walt Disney World's Animal Kingdom. I was really enjoying shooting from the moving vehicles...until I looked at my shots on my computer. The trucks don't stop for photo ops, and the vehicle movement was clearly evident in the many blurred photos -- almost half of my shots were unusable. If I had had IS, I think the number of usable shots would have been more like 90%.

Another place where this lens would shine, in my opinion, is for candids at wedding receptions and other events where people are moving about and the photograper can't realistically use a tripod. Again, the extra stop of light gathering, the narrower depth of field (for isolating the subjects), and the IS could be worth their weight in gold.

Of course, the OP said his goal was mainly architectural shots, so IS and narrower DOF might not be justified in his case. If a 24mm maximum wide angle (38mm equivalent field of view on a 40D) will work, then the 24-105 f4L might be a good choice.

In my case, a 17-55 will stay on my 20D, and when I get my 3D in January or February I'll start collecting L-series lenses for it.

Aug 21, 2008 at 05:48 PM

adamrose13
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

every agrees both are great lenses. its up to you to decide which focal length you are going to need. the 40D you are buying or already bought. did you get the kit or the camera separately? maybe you should try the new EF-S 18-55 IS for about $150 and see fi the focal lenght is good. i have heard great things from that lens.

Aug 21, 2008 at 07:48 PM

bluefox9er
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

17-55 mm f2.8 IS is a fantastic lens, but has a ridiculous price here in the UK.
Heathrow duty free were selling it for 725 GB pounds...thats around $1,450 US.

The 1dsmkIII is OVER $9,500 U.S

the psoter above me is right..no mtter the relative merits of these wonderful items of photography gears, we are being RIPPED OFF in the most agressive and blatant manner....yet we still continue to pay these prices :-(

Aug 21, 2008 at 08:01 PM

Dark_
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

bluefox9er wrote:
17-55 mm f2.8 IS is a fantastic lens, but has a ridiculous price here in the UK.
Heathrow duty free were selling it for 725 GB pounds...thats around $1,450 US.

The 1dsmkIII is OVER $9,500 U.S

the psoter above me is right..no mtter the relative merits of these wonderful items of photography gears, we are being RIPPED OFF in the most agressive and blatant manner....yet we still continue to pay these prices :-(

But that is not the fault of the lens but the pricing of Canon UK, so you can not fault the lens for it being priced higher where you are.

Aug 21, 2008 at 08:27 PM

bluefox9er
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

no, it's not the fault of the lens..the 17-55 mm f2.8 IS is a great elns...but at that sort of price, why SHOULDN'T it be the very best? you should be GUARANTEED a good copy, none of the dust that has plagued this lens, no distortion or pin cushioning, no fringing and no vignetting...

Aug 21, 2008 at 09:34 PM

danmitchell
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

bluefox9er wrote:
17-55 mm f2.8 IS is a fantastic lens, but has a ridiculous price here in the UK.
Heathrow duty free were selling it for 725 GB pounds...thats around $1,450 US.

The 1dsmkIII is OVER $9,500 U.S

Which suggests that this issue is not specific to the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS but general to Canon gear, right?

Aren't the alternatives also more expensive there than in the US?

I wonder what the price would be on a EF 27-90mm f/2.8 L with IS if Canon produced one? That would be the equivalent full frame lens...

Dan

Aug 21, 2008 at 10:12 PM

Dark_
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

bluefox9er wrote:
no, it's not the fault of the lens..the 17-55 mm f2.8 IS is a great elns...but at that sort of price, why SHOULDN'T it be the very best? you should be GUARANTEED a good copy, none of the dust that has plagued this lens, no distortion or pin cushioning, no fringing and no vignetting...

I have yet to get any of the issues that are reported like it being a vacuum, etc. There is a bit of distortion and the vignetting is pretty minimal from my experience. So far i have yet to see any other lens preform just as well.

In the end this is all semantics as only one of us owns the lens

, but i would have to say the OPs question has been answered heh

Aug 21, 2008 at 11:01 PM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #13 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

bluefox9er wrote:

The 1dsmkIII is OVER $9,500 U.S

Really, it's only $11999 in Australia

Aug 22, 2008 at 01:44 AM

CraigLondon
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

Dark_ wrote:

..but i would have to say the OPs question has been answered heh

.

And as the OP, I would certainly agree! Thanks to all - very beneficial help to me in this post and looking forward to learning plenty with the 17-55mm I am going to purchase. Thanks again. Craig.

Aug 22, 2008 at 07:14 AM

gabimaster
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

I use 24-105mm f/4 IS USM on a 30D and believe me,it's a terrific couple.IT never leave my 30d,so 20 months ago I had to buy another 30D to use it with my 70-300mm IS USM; I also have a friend that has 30D+17-55 AND we've made some tests together;17-55 is not a bad lens,but is not even close to my baby(24-105L).THE colors are more vibrant,more beautiful,the lens is moving faster to achieve focus,is weather sealed, and I think his IS is better than the one from 17-55. IT'S AN "L"!!!!!!

Aug 22, 2008 at 12:03 PM

Dark_
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

CraigLondon wrote:
Dark_ wrote:

..but i would have to say the OPs question has been answered heh

.

And as the OP, I would certainly agree! Thanks to all - very beneficial help to me in this post and looking forward to learning plenty with the 17-55mm I am going to purchase. Thanks again. Craig.

Have fun with your new purchase Craig and let us know how it goes

Aug 22, 2008 at 03:21 PM

CKrueger
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

goldvertigo wrote:
because i had a few bad ones
well that pisses me off!
I buy lenses with well earned money not to have a few bad ONES!!! There is more in life then trying a dozen lenses from 1 kind so you dont have bad luck!
All guys at Quality Control must be fired at Sigma

OK, fire them all. We'll replace them with you. You implement a QC procedure that will produce 100% perfect lenses for the same price Sigma charges now.

If you were really good, you might be able to hit Leica prices. But not Sigma prices.

There is sample variation in camera equipment, especially affordable camera equipment. All the kicking and screaming in the world won't change that. Learn to deal with it like the rest of us have.

Aug 22, 2008 at 03:52 PM

CraigLondon
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

Dark_ wrote:

Have fun with your new purchase Craig and let us know how it goes

Will do and thanks Dark. As an aside, if the 17-55m f2.8 is going to be the choice, is there any value in purchasing the "nifty fifty" as well? I know it is very good value for money, and am sure the f1.8 would be very beneficial, but just wondering if the 17-55 would largely cover me on portraits?

Aug 23, 2008 at 03:12 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #19 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

CraigLondon wrote:
I would use the lens for general "walkaround", but with a real leaning toward landscapes, buildings, oft in B&W - and here in the UK, often in limited light conditions or at dawn/dusk/sometimes night. People/static cars etc would also be photographed, both indoors and out.

The 17-55/2.8 is perfect for your needs as it is faster and wider. It will also AF faster in low light.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Edited on Aug 23, 2008 at 05:01 PM

Aug 23, 2008 at 05:00 PM

Luis Pacheco
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

Yakim Peled wrote:
CraigLondon wrote:
I would use the lens for general "walkaround", but with a real leaning toward landscapes, buildings, oft in B&W - and here in the UK, often in limited light conditions or at dawn/dusk/sometimes night. People/static cars etc would also be photographed, both indoors and out.

The 17-55/2.8 is perfect for your needs as it is faster and wider. It will also AF faster in low light.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

+1

Aug 23, 2008 at 05:25 PM

WilliamG
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #21 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

I'd like to throw an opinion out there. I just went from a 40D to a 5D. I had the 17-55 IS on my 40D 99% of the time, and I still had the 40D when my new 24-105 F4 IS L lens showed up with my 5D. I got to test both. First, I found the 17-55 lens a real frustration a lot of the time. The build quality is quite simply awful. It doesn't zoom very smoothly, and feels very plastic. The pictures it put out on my 40D were quite delightful, but they were always, ALWAYS missing something that I got with my 70-200 F4 IS. Now sure, we're talking different lenses and different focal lengths, but my 17-55 never truly did it for me from a PQ perspective or a build quality perspective. I got my 5D, put on the 24-105, and now I've got the perfect combination. The 24-105 on a 40D is a PERHAPS poor choice, depending on WHAT you photograph, since it's might not be wide enough for you. And yes, you lose one stop on the 24-105 vs the 17-55, but to be honest with you when there are times that F4 isn't fast enough, F2.8 isn't fast enough either and I reach for my primes...

Now, to be more specific to the 40D and forgetting about the 5D, if you're not into wide photography too much, you might consider the 24-105. It's better built, has much better reach etc etc. Then you could, in theory, add a 17-40 F4 L as your wide lens. The 17-55 is too darn expensive, and I found its reach on a crop body quite limited. On a full frame, the 24-105 has a tad more reach than the 17-55 on a crop and it's definitely noticeable. On a crop body, it's a huge amount more reach using the 24-105 than a 17-55, of course.

Excuse me for the garbled thoughts, but, really, what I discovered in my limited time as a photographer of sorts, is that full frame cameras just do this job better. I get a shallower depth of field with my 5D at F4 than my 40D at F2.8, and I can crank the ISO on my 5D much higher than I could on my 40D without noticeable noise.

For a crop, I'd prefer to have a 17-85 Canon IS lens. More useful walkabout than the 17-55, good picture quality (despite the naysayers), much lighter and under half the price. Then, with the money saved over the 17-55, pick up a few fast primes. I very, very rarely shot wide open with the 17-55, fyi..

So there you go, a few thoughts...

Edited by WilliamG on Aug 24, 2008 at 03:50 PM GMT

Edited on Aug 24, 2008 at 09:50 PM

Aug 24, 2008 at 07:13 PM

RalphJ
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #22 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

I've got a 1Ds2 (FF) that often wears my 24-105, and

I've got a 40D that I've paired with the 17-55/2.8 IS.

The latter is my preferred combination in most everyday situations. The 17-55 is simply an amazing lens.

I also find the 17-55 to be sharper than the 24-105, as did the-digital-picture, where the reviewer wrote:

"My 17-55 matches or exceeds the optical performance of my L-Series zooms in this similar focal length range ..."

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Aug 24, 2008 at 07:33 PM

gml1
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #23 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

CraigLondon wrote:
Will do and thanks Dark. As an aside, if the 17-55m f2.8 is going to be the choice, is there any value in purchasing the "nifty fifty" as well?

No. You'd be better off with the 85/1.8 (or its sister lens, the 100/2), IMO.

Edited on Aug 24, 2008 at 10:18 PM

Aug 24, 2008 at 10:02 PM

python2000
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #24 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

I have both 17-55 and 24-105. My relative and I take turns on our 40Ds. They are both great lenses. If I could have only one, and I knew I didn't need wider than 17, I would get 17-55, and couple it with a 70-200 (or 70-300) length. If you are going ultrawide, the 10-22 ad 24-105 combo is awesome. Throw in a 50,60, or 85mm prime and you have a very nice kit.

You can't really go wrong either way. The build quality is different, but no one who modestly takes care of the lenses would be afraid to own a 17-55. War zone or rugby scrum, different story.

To the short-sighted people who say they may go FF, and therefore don't buy EF-S, it's really easy to sell the 17-55 and 10-22. They sell used for nearly the same price as new. It's like renting the lens for a year and having it devalue only $100-150 at most. It's really a no brainer, and I don't know why people bring up a potential move to dissuade people from the now. There are people here who didn't go FF because of the 10-22 and 17-55 lenses, they are that good.

Aug 24, 2008 at 10:25 PM

gyrodave
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #25 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

WilliamG wrote:
For a crop, I'd prefer to have a 17-85 Canon IS lens. More useful walkabout than the 17-55, good picture quality (despite the naysayers), much lighter and under half the price.

Ack! I guess you can count me as a naysayer!!
The 17-85 has proven time and time again to be way below the quality of the 17-55 2.8 IS! I sold my 17-85 for the 17-40L then sold the 17-40L for the 17-55 2.8 IS. Without a doubt, - for crop cameras, the 17-55 2.8 IS is an upgrade to both the 17~85 and the 17-40 4L!

-Dave

Aug 25, 2008 at 01:35 AM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 end