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?

Dark_
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #1 · 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:
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 25, 2008 at 01:37 AM

Fred Lindsey
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #2 · 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 09:28 AM

dhphoto
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #3 · 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 10:28 AM

Aug 25, 2008 at 10:25 AM

Yakim Peled
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #4 · 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 10:34 AM

Fred Lindsey
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #5 · 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 10:35 AM

dhphoto
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · 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 10:53 AM

Aug 25, 2008 at 10:53 AM

RalphJ
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #7 · 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 11:09 AM

Aug 25, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Yakim Peled
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #8 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

Recent handheld IS examples. Note the exposure times. Anyone wants to try this with a non-IS lens?

Worth it? Well, the answer to that is always subjective. For me it is 'Absolutely' but YMMV.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

2012 © Yakim Peled

Canon EOS 40D 23 mm f/5.6 1/1 sec 400 ISO -0.5 EV

2012 © Yakim Peled

Canon EOS 40D 17 mm f/8.0 2 sec 400 ISO -0.5 EV

Aug 25, 2008 at 11:15 AM

dhphoto
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #9 · 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 11:18 AM

Aug 25, 2008 at 11:16 AM

Yakim Peled
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #10 · 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 11:20 AM

dhphoto
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

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

Yakim Peled wrote:
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.

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 11:26 AM

Aug 25, 2008 at 11:25 AM

RalphJ
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

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

dhphoto wrote: I'm not quite sure what you're trying to show . . . the background looks very similar and so was presumably shot on a tripod.

Bingo! Point proven: A photo taken with an IS lens at the better part of 1 second shutter speed is so clear that it looks like it was taken with a tripod!

For those who don't ever wish for three more stops of handholdability (including people who don't make their living from photography), I agree with David: the IS isn't worth the price premium. If you shoot only in bright daylight, outdoors, IS is a waste on anything under than 100mm or so.

Many photographers, however, do value IS, and not just at telephoto lengths. Yakim's examples "clearly" show how far the people were able to walk through the frame while the shutter was open.

Edited on Aug 25, 2008 at 11:35 AM

Aug 25, 2008 at 11:32 AM

Fred Lindsey
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

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

I shot handheld in a Moscow subway for 2seconds at F22. The train's motion blur was awesome yet the station and the time on the clock was sharp.

Couldn't do that with a Tammy.

Simply put the 17-55 IS is THE best walk around/standard zoom on the 40D or such available.

The 24-105 is one of the best for FF yet on APS-C where a crop factor is concerned 40mm is way too long unless you have a 10-22 to hand or such.

Aug 25, 2008 at 11:37 AM

abam
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

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

pretty cool, yakim.

Aug 25, 2008 at 11:40 AM

Yakim Peled
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

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

dhphoto wrote:
the background looks very similar and so was presumably shot on a tripod.

It was not. That's exactly my point. These pictures (at 0.7 sec. and an amazing 2 sec.) were shot handheld.

abam wrote:
pretty cool, yakim.

10X

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Edited on Aug 25, 2008 at 11:53 AM

Aug 25, 2008 at 11:51 AM

dhphoto
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

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

So what did you prove? That IS is good for long exposures? Yes I know that, I have several IS lenses myself and they have their uses, I never said otherwise.

But just the same shots could have been achieved using a tripod and a Tamron 17-50 for a third the price so big deal. You honestly think shots like that make the 17-55IS value for money?

David

Edited on Aug 25, 2008 at 12:03 PM

Aug 25, 2008 at 12:01 PM

Yakim Peled
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

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

Yes, but with this lens you could have achieved it without the tripod. I don't know what about you but when I go out and take my camera just in case I see anything interesting, I don't take my tripod with me. That is why I think that the added price of the Canon is worth it.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Aug 25, 2008 at 12:05 PM

gene A.
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

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

The 17-55mm is a very good lens. I have shot hundreds of weddings with a 24-105mm on my 5D, and when some equipment was out for repair I picked up a 17-55mm to use on a 40D until I got a 5D back. The image quality out of the 17-55mm/40D was every bit as good as what I was getting out of the 5D/24-105mm combo. The focus accuracy of the 40D was much better than the 5D, and the 40D was more forgiving when it came to exposure accuracy.
That being said, the 17-55mm doesn't get me wide enough, it has consumer build quality, and no weather sealing, it doesn't come with a hood and B&H wants over $50.00 for one, and its just plain stupid expensive for what it is. In my estimation its Canons attempt to force you to move to full frame in order to get a decent zoom range.

Aug 25, 2008 at 01:04 PM

danmitchell
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

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

dhphoto wrote:
You honestly think shots like that make the 17-55IS value for money?

That's a cheap shot and uncalled for.

We can debate the value of particular lens features, but a) the photographs clearly illustrate a technique that one could not employ without a tripod with a non-IS lens and b) reflexively trashing the poster's aesthetic sense is a cheap argumentative device.

By the way, I do not own or use the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. However, I have gotten to know quite a bit about this lens, and I'm convinced that it is an excellent lens option for a variety of photographers shooting cropped sensor cameras.

Dan

Aug 25, 2008 at 02:40 PM

dhphoto
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

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

Well Dan if you are going to post an example to try and prove a point, you have to expect that shot to get criticised if it really doesn't!

I just can't believe the cr@p that is talked about IS and especially about the IS in the 17-55IS, almost like, well, self-justification. But you re right, I thought the shots were awful and I should have kept my opinions to myself and for that I apologise

David

Edited by dhphoto on Aug 25, 2008 at 03:02 PM GMT

Edited on Aug 25, 2008 at 03:02 PM

Aug 25, 2008 at 03:01 PM

Fred Lindsey
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #21 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

If its not wide enough fair enough but I think for most people an effective 28mm is fine as is 90mm at the long end.

Tell me for the same price would you prefer a 28-90 2.8 IS or a 24-105 4 IS with marginally worse IQ

Aug 25, 2008 at 03:01 PM

dhphoto
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #22 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

The 24-105L has better IQ and actually (in the UK) it's cheaper and it's not limited to small sensor cameras, and it comes with a lens hood

David

Edited by dhphoto on Aug 25, 2008 at 03:20 PM GMT

Edited on Aug 25, 2008 at 03:20 PM

Aug 25, 2008 at 03:03 PM

RalphJ
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #23 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

dhphoto wrote:
The 24-105L has better IQ

Actually photozone.de found the 17-55 to be sharper than the 24-105 and I think the-digital-picture.com did too.

Aug 25, 2008 at 03:20 PM

Fred Lindsey
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

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

My 17-55 is sharper than my 70-200 2.8 so...........

Also rather than a reason to move to full frame I'd say the 17-55 is a reason not to. It is like I say superb and unmatched by full frame.

I don't know where you're looking but I think this says differently regarding price -
Camera Price Buster

Aug 25, 2008 at 03:26 PM

dhphoto
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #25 · 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-105mm f4?

The 24-105 has just gone up! As you can see it was considerably cheaper at the beginning of August and I admit I haven't checked since

Maybe it's shortly no longer going to be a kit lens

However, it does come with a lens hood and it will cover full frame (and has a longer range)

David

Edited on Aug 25, 2008 at 03:32 PM

Aug 25, 2008 at 03:31 PM


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