fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2

4 5 6 end

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

Dark_
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #1 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

CraigLondon wrote:
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 10:21 AM

CKrueger
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #2 · 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 10:52 AM

CraigLondon
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #3 · 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 10:12 AM

Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #4 · 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 12:01 PM

Aug 23, 2008 at 12:00 PM

Luis Pacheco
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #5 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

Yakim Peled wrote:
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 12:25 PM

WilliamG
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · 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 04:50 PM

Aug 24, 2008 at 02:13 PM

RalphJ
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #7 · 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 02:33 PM

gml1
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #8 · 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 05:18 PM

Aug 24, 2008 at 05:02 PM

python2000
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #9 · 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 05:25 PM

gyrodave
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #10 · 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 24, 2008 at 08:35 PM

Dark_
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #11 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

The Larger f-stop is always nice and makes for some nice portraits. For me I instead got the Sigma 30 f/1.4 so I could have something close to a 50mm FOV on my 40D. A friend has the 50 f/1.8 and likes the FOV so far. Either way for the price it doesn't hurt to have it in your kit

Dark

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? 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 24, 2008 at 08:37 PM

Fred Lindsey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #12 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

goldvertigo wrote:
i say: go for the 24-105L, dont consider a Sigma (see my post after this ;Sigma sucks)
And yes , in my opinion Canon lenses are overpriced, esspecially wenn you have to pay extra for the lenshood!! But see what happens wenn u buy Sigma (used several in 18 years.

Only in very small rooms you need more wide angle, the L-lens doesnt suck dirt.

While the 24-105 may be a fantastic lens on a 5D or 1Ds it is not a lens which will serve you well on the 40D.

The 17-55 is not overpriced. It is a well crafted brilliant performing lens. The IQ is simply outstanding often reputed to be more outstanding than the well regarded 24-70L - I have tried both and I stand by this. The 17-55 sounds the perfect focal length for you anyway. If you want a fast telephoto why not pick up the 85mm F1.8 or if you don't want to spend anymore dosh then consider a used Sigma 70-300 or such. I had one and they are brilliant for the price stopped down a little.

In terms of dirt and dust both lenses will suck equal amounts. I have had my lens for nearly a year now and I see a few specks. I also have a 70-200 2.8 with a few specks, 1 year old. The 24-105 is an extending lens, the fact is that due to the air being pulled in to allow it to zoom there must be dust particles entering also.

Aug 25, 2008 at 04:28 AM

dhphoto
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #13 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

Sorry Fred, but six hundred quid for a modest zoom range 2.8 EF-S with IS is ridiculous when Tamron can make a lens without IS with the same image quality for less than a third the price. And the Canon doesn't even come with a hood!

The 17-55IS is perhaps the best Canon example of Emperors new clothes since the awful 17-85IS

David

Edited on Aug 25, 2008 at 05:28 AM

Aug 25, 2008 at 05:25 AM

Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #14 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

dhphoto wrote:
Sorry Fred, but six hundred quid for a modest zoom range 2.8 EF-S with IS is ridiculous when Tamron can make a lens without IS with the same image quality for less than a third the price. And the Canon doesn't even come with a hood!

I tried a friend's 17-50/2.8 (third! copy). My 17-55 is better (tough you need 100% crop to see it) but in low light (typical indoor lighting) in nukes the Tamron in AF speed and handheld ability. I have no wish to switch to the Tamron and save the money or spend it on something else.

And yes, I admit. I am a ring-USM and IS junky.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Aug 25, 2008 at 05:34 AM

Fred Lindsey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #15 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

Sigma make a 24-70 for �250
Canon make a 24-70 for �800

Tamron make a 17-50 for �250
Canon make a 17-55 for �600

The IQ of both the Tamron and Sigma aren't equal to the Canon equivalents, that is why they are more money. Also the Canons have USM, IS, more durable build quality, smoother rings, a nicer appeal.

Similarly if you were a landscape photographer would you buy a Fuj S5 Pro for its awesome DR or a 5D with no such good DR but a host of other much better features.
The DR is the price.

Aug 25, 2008 at 05:35 AM

dhphoto
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #16 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

There is NO perceptable difference in image quality between the Tamron 17-50 and the Canon 17-55IS and I simply defy anyone to prove otherwise.

The USM and the IS are nice features, but the build quality itself is similar and the Canon simply doesn't justify the price to me (and I have a host of expensive lenses)

Oh and I wouldn't touch the Fuji dslr

David

Edited on Aug 25, 2008 at 05:53 AM

Aug 25, 2008 at 05:53 AM

RalphJ
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #17 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

dhphoto wrote:
Sorry Fred, but six hundred quid for a modest zoom range 2.8 EF-S with IS is ridiculous when Tamron can make a lens without IS with the same image quality for less than a third the price.

Well, that's comparing apples to oranges. The Canon 24-105 w/IS costs three times as much as the Tamron 24-135 w/o IS and they have about the same rating in the review section - and yet many photographers opt for the 24-105 despite its narrower zoom range!

Even if the Tamron 17-50's IQ can equal the IQ of the 17-55, to me IS is huge. In many situations for which I can get sharp photos with the 17-55 IS, the Tamron 17-50 w/o IS is effectively an f/8 lens because I lose three stops of handholdability. To me IS is more than worth the price premium, and to judge from the number of other "suckers" like me willing to pony up for the 17-55 (or for the 24-105 over the 24-135), I'm not alone.

When and if Tamron, Sigma, or Tokina offers a 17-5x w/IS, it will be a fair comparison.

Edited on Aug 25, 2008 at 06:09 AM

Aug 25, 2008 at 06:06 AM

dhphoto
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #18 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

I honestly don't care a fig if someone wants to blow their money on a 17-55IS. It's their money and if the IS is THAT important to you on a fast short zoom then fine. It will only help you with your supposed three stop advantage on something that doesn't itself move anyhow. If comparing two lenses with identical speeds, almost identcal focal lengths and almost identical performance is apples and oranges I wonder where you shop for your fruit, but it is a regularly made comparison because it is completely valid

However saying that there is a significant difference in the optical quality is simply not true and the IS alone shouldn't be worth 2/3rds the cost of the lens.

YMMV, and thats fine with me

Edited on Aug 25, 2008 at 06:18 AM

Aug 25, 2008 at 06:16 AM

Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #19 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

dhphoto wrote:
It will only help you with your supposed three stop advantage on something that doesn't itself move anyhow.

It did. I wanted to show the motion of the people vs. the stillness of the surrounding.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Aug 25, 2008 at 06:20 AM

dhphoto
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #20 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

Yakim Peled wrote:
It did. I wanted to show the motion of the people vs. the stillness of the surrounding.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to show, other than people are a bit less blurred, but still indistinguishable when you use an IS lens, the background looks very similar and so was presumably shot on a tripod. They presumably weren't moving at exactly the same speed in both shots either (they seem to be walking in the second one) so I just don't see the point

If you can make a living out of such images it might justify the price of the IS, but I seriously doubt if one would do this sort of shot much

David

Edited on Aug 25, 2008 at 06:26 AM

Aug 25, 2008 at 06:25 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 6 end