Hello all - I am a newbie to the site, but have been reading for some time so bear with me! Having recently purchased a 40D after much research, I am keen to make the "right" decision about my first lens.

After a lot of time here, and on dpreview, I am now down to a choice between the Canon 17-55mm or the 24-105mm L lens as my primary lens on the 40D. 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. I would very much value opinion on the following to help guide me in my thoughts as to which lens to purchase!

(i) Does the IS on the 24-105 L not allow you to "stop-down" from the f4.0, in effect negating the difference between it and the f2.8? I am aware the 2.8 also has IS.

(ii) I am concerned that the 55mm maximum (88mm with the 1.6*) could be limiting if I want to zoom in, but AM considering in the mid-term a 70-200mm lens which basically could take this concern away. I do not currently take any/many wildlife or action shots.

(iii) I am happy purchasing the "nifty fifty" for portrait work if that made the choice more toward the 24-105mm easier.

Many thanks & help!

The 17-55mm focal length range is just about perfect for many general purposes on a crop sensor camera like the 40D. In angle of view terms, it is like using a 27mm-88mm zoom on a film SLR or full frame DSLR.

(I have a feeling that a Canon EF lens going from roughly 24mm to 85mm with f/2.8 maximum aperture and IS would be a pretty popular lens with full frame shooters!)

To repeat an old story around here... IS on the 24-105 gives you 2-3 additional stops of low light performance in terms of reducing camera shake. If you can hand hold the camera/lens at 1/50 second without IS, you can probably hand hold this camera/lens with IS at 1/12 second or slower. However, this does not help with moving subjects - you'll still get a lot of motion blur at these very slow shutter speeds. Bottom line: IS is very effective in situations in which camera shake is the issue but not effective when subject motion is the issue.

I shoot full frame so the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is not an option for me. However, if I shot a crop sensor body I would get the EFS lens over either the 17-40mm f/4 or the 16-35mm f/2.8 - both fine lenses, but the EFS seems to outperform them in a number of important ways on a crop body.

The 24-105 doesn't really seem like a direct alternative to the 17-55 to me. I used the 24-105 on a crop sensor camera, and it can produce fine results. However, the minimum 24mm focal length is barely a wide angle focal length at all on the cropped sensor body, providing the same angle of view as a 38mm or 39mm lens on full frame. (Some old rangefinder cameras had more or less than focal length.) As an only lens, you need to consider this carefully if you get the 24-105. In my experience it really needed a complementary wider lens.

Dan

Both are great lenses ... i had the 24-105 and it was a realy great lens. Great construction, colors, sharpnes etc. but .. i needed that extra stop. I was betwen 24-70 and 17-55. I chose the 24-70 because of the things i take pictures of. Most of my concert photography is betwen 24-50 mm and for "in the face" portraits around 70mm, so the 24-70 was perfect for me. I too use a 40D and dont miss the wide end. Ohh .. big plus was also the great build quality of the L.

I tested the 17-55 also and it was a realy great lens. Bether suited as a walkaround and if youre planing on shooting landscapes and buildings etc., i think youre bether off with the 17-55. For me .. because of the rought situations i get myself into when shooting in the pit, the 24-70 was for me the bether choice.

hope i helped you with my interpretation and explanation of the choices i made for myself...

(i) The 24-105 L can be "stopped-down" from f/4, but it seems that you have it backwards. "Stopping down" from f/4 means setting the lens to f/5.6, f/16, etc. These apertures will let in less light than f/4. The 24-105 cannot be set to f/2.8, but this limitation has nothing to do with IS. It simply is not designed to open up the aperture that wide.

(ii) You may find 55mm limiting, or you may not. It really just depends on what you shoot. Based on your preference for landscapes and architecture, I would say that 55mm is long enough for you. 55 is a pretty standard long end for walkaround lenses on 1.6x crop cameras. A 70-200 would alleviate any concerns about reach for anything other than wildlife and field sports..

(iii) The fifty would be a good idea if you go for the 24-105 to give you a low light lens. Some find primes limiting, others liberating. The fifty would give you less of an advantage with the 17-55 2.8, but not insignificant.

And as suggested above, 24mm may not be wide enough, especially for architecture (and potentially landscapes). If I was only buying one lens, between these two, it would be the 17-55 (I like wide). If two lenses are in the budget, the 24-105 and the 10-22 would be an option. The problem there is that you may end up changing lenses quite often. Some find this more of a hassle than others.

I recently bought a 24-105 L to use with my XSi. I was thinking about the 17-55 as they are in the same price range.
What made me decide this is that the rest of my lenses are all EF and the only crop made lens that I have is the Sigma 10-20 (so it covers from 10-20 and 24-105 as a walkaround). And a Sigma 24-70 2.8 DG, to use in the future when I change to FF, so the 24-105 is more than enough for me.
I'm an amateur, so, I don't need super fast lenses. f4 is good to me.
I had a Sigma 170-500 but didn't use it anyway. I sold it and bought the first L series (the 70-200 f4L - non IS). Wow... what a lens. Damn... it's so good...
That helped me to decide to get another L (24-105). The build quality, smoothness, hood... everything is perfect.
People say that L series perform as it's best in a FF. I imagine what it could be (knowing the issues about vigneting... etc). If I'm already amazed by it's performance in a crop body.
I don't even tried the 17-55, but I guess it must be spectacular as well as everybody says.
I think you should try and see. The 24mm is not that wide in a crop but for me is good.

danmitchell wrote:
The 17-55mm focal length range is just about perfect for many general purposes on a crop sensor camera like the 40D. In angle of view terms, it is like using a 27mm-88mm zoom on a film SLR or full frame DSLR.

(I have a feeling that a Canon EF lens going from roughly 24mm to 85mm with f/2.8 maximum aperture and IS would be a pretty popular lens with full frame shooters!)

Dan

Spot on Dan. I would love the 24-70L to be repalced by a 24-85 f/2.8L (IS or not).

I still find the 24-105 very useful on a crop camera; I don't always need to shoot wide and make panos where possible if I do. Sometimes I prefer the less is more approach and get tighter shots. I would love Canon to also replace the 17-40 with a 17-55 f/4L IS though.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
I would love Canon to also replace the 17-40 with a 17-55 f/4L IS though.

Interesting thought - I hadn't considered that. Or perhaps something that only goes to 40mm but goes wider than 17mm? How would a 14-40mm sound? Just thinking outloud - don't expect to see this any time soon.

Dan

Hi Craig,

if you look for a first lens for 40D then get the 17.55 IS instead of 24..105 IS!

I just came back from a 2 wks holiday (mostly outdoor) in Scotland. 17..55 was sitting on my 40D @ 90% of time. Other 10% was 70..200/4LIS. 10..22 saw no use.

Endre

I used to have the 24-70L + Tokina 12-24 and now have the 17-55 + 100/2.
The current combo serves me much better. Since I'm lazy to change lenses, the 17-55 stays on my 40D 99% of the time.
A friend of mine has the 24-105L + 18-55 IS (the new lit kens - sells for under $200 in the US) and she's very happy too.

danmitchell wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I would love Canon to also replace the 17-40 with a 17-55 f/4L IS though.

Interesting thought - I hadn't considered that. Or perhaps something that only goes to 40mm but goes wider than 17mm? How would a 14-40mm sound? Just thinking outloud - don't expect to see this any time soon.

Dan

Dan a 14-40 would silence critics of there being no UWA for 1.3x crop. It would probably still need to be f/4 to not step on the toes of the 16-35 f/2.8 and be affordable.

Alternately let's see Canon offer two lenses:

12-24 f/4L and 17-55 f/4L IS

I'm sure Canon could make a 12-24 @ f/4 pretty well rather than try for a Nikon like f/2.8 and for landscape use I'm happy with f/4 lenses.

Many thanks to you all - very much appreciate this advice and it is very helpful indeed. I think I am now on the 17-55 track, with then a focus on the 70-200mm in the future. Also take on board the point re not needing the "nifty fifty" if the 17-55 is my primary lens.

One additional query if I may - I hope to use the 40D for dusk/long exposure night time shots on a tripod. Excuse the basic question, but will the f2.8 make a measurably larger difference to the f4.0 in these circumstances (i.e. in terms of picture sharpness?).

ScooberJake wrote:
(i) The 24-105 L can be "stopped-down" from f/4, but it seems that you have it backwards. "Stopping down" from f/4 means setting the lens to f/5.6, f/16, etc. These apertures will let in less light than f/4. The 24-105 cannot be set to f/2.8, but this limitation has nothing to do with IS. It simply is not designed to open up the aperture that wide.


My error in terminology I am afraid - I meant stopping up to f2.8 and therefore obtaining more light.

CraigLondon wrote:
Hello all - I am a newbie to the site, but have been reading for some time so bear with me! Having recently purchased a 40D after much research, I am keen to make the "right" decision about my first lens.

After a lot of time here, and on dpreview, I am now down to a choice between the Canon 17-55mm or the 24-105mm L lens as my primary lens on the 40D. 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. I would very much value opinion on the following to help guide me in my thoughts as to which lens to purchase!

(i) Does the IS on the 24-105 L not allow you to "stop-down" from the f4.0, in effect negating the difference between it and the f2.8? I am aware the 2.8 also has IS.

(ii) I am concerned that the 55mm maximum (88mm with the 1.6*) could be limiting if I want to zoom in, but AM considering in the mid-term a 70-200mm lens which basically could take this concern away. I do not currently take any/many wildlife or action shots.

(iii) I am happy purchasing the "nifty fifty" for portrait work if that made the choice more toward the 24-105mm easier.

Many thanks & help!

(i) I think you are confused. f/2.8 lets more light in and hence allows you to have faster shutter speeds, teamed with this the 17-55 has newer IS (I think) means that you will be able to handhold shots much better than with the 24-105.

(ii) The 55mm may be limiting but if you are considering a 70-200 then I wouldnt worry. I regularly take my 17-55 as my walkaround lens and very rarely wish I had that little bit extra without going into >150mm

(iii) I dont understand the logic behind this! I think you should get the nifty fifty anyway, for £50 its an outstanding lens!

Just to sum up my thought process before going for the 17-55:

1) It is f/2.8 and has IS, is very sharp wide open and has great contrast/colours

2) Almost everyone with one would never get rid of it, and a lot of people who go to FF wish there was an equivalent for the FF cameras.

3) I can handhold mine at 17mm to 0.6s with great results - I printed a photo at 17mm/0.6s on A3 and the results were fantastic.

My only concern was with dust as a lot of people report this problem. Well, after a year of very regular use mine has not built up a dust problem so I am very happy!

CraigLondon wrote:
One additional query if I may - I hope to use the 40D for dusk/long exposure night time shots on a tripod. Excuse the basic question, but will the f2.8 make a measurably larger difference to the f4.0 in these circumstances (i.e. in terms of picture sharpness?).


The widest aperture doesnt necessarily have anything to do with image sharpness; it is dependant on the lens optics. The 17-55 has very good quality optics (in fact surpasses many L lenses). I havent compared it directly to the 24-105 but I would not be surprised if the 17-55 was sharper.

At night, what will make the difference with the f/2.8 is the ability to let more light in and therefore the camera will be able to autofcus more easily. This is especially true for the 40D since it has AF points that work better when using f/2.8 or faster lenses.

Hi Craig and welcome.

Whilst the 17-55IS is clearly a very good lens, it is hideously expensive in my opinion (especially in the UK, and if you buy from HK and get a duff one it's awkward)

The 24-105 is a fine lens but obviously not as wide on a crop camera - but it does mean you can move up to a non-Ef_S mount camera and not have to sell the 17-55IS.

I would seriously suggest you look at both the Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 17-70 lenses before you plonk down on the 17-55.

If you are using a tripod the IS becomes meaningless and for low light shots on a tripod you can use whatever aperture you want (between f8 and f13 are the 'sharpest' usually)

Honestly I've looked at the 17-55 many times, but it's propensity to collect dust, it's average build and it's high price just put me off

David

CraigLondon wrote:...One additional query if I may - I hope to use the 40D for dusk/long exposure night time shots on a tripod. Excuse the basic question, but will the f2.8 make a measurably larger difference to the f4.0 in these circumstances (i.e. in terms of picture sharpness?).

Since the f2.8 will allow more light to enter the lens, the equivalent exposure will allow a faster shutter speed than the f4 lens.

One stop may not seem like much, but it can make a difference when a long exposure in dim light would otherwise be a really long exposure.

Subject motion, camera movement, etc. can be an issue in dim light, even with IS; so the fastest possible shutter speed can help toward sharper images.

HTH.

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.

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.


I have had some terrible Sigma lenses, but this 17-70 actually outperforms my Tamron 17-50, so please don't dismiss all Sigma lenses just becasue you have had a few bad ones.

David

Without a doubt for general shooting / first lens, 17-X is better than 24-X on a crop body. The 24-X is really designed for a full-frame. It'll certainly work on any EOS camera, but the focal length range is a bit messed up on a crop body.

dhphoto wrote: I have had some terrible Sigma lenses, but this 17-70 actually outperforms my Tamron 17-50, so please don't dismiss all Sigma lenses just becasue you have had a few bad ones.
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
kevinsullivan wrote: but the focal length range is a bit messed up on a crop body.
Its not a bit messed up, its multiplied by 1.6 (Canon) and 1.5 (Nikon)

Perhaps you should step back and chill a little goldvertigo, shouting at me won't make the lenses any better.

Every manufacturer makes some less than stellar lenses and every lens type has poor samples. I had a very low opinion of Sigma until I tried my 17-70, which is clearly a good one.

Don't dismiss every Sigma lens just because you have had a few bad experiences.

Oh, and lens focal lengths are not 'multiplied' on a crop camera, these are the 'equivalent' focal lengths on a full frame camera. A lens cannot change it's focal length (except within it's zoom range)

dhphoto wrote:
Perhaps you should step back and chill a little goldvertigo, shouting at me won't make the lenses any better.

Every manufacturer makes some less than stellar lenses and every lens type has poor samples. I had a very low opinion of Sigma until I tried my 17-70, which is clearly a good one.

Don't dismiss every Sigma lens just because you have had a few bad experiences.

Oh, and lens focal lengths are not 'multiplied' on a crop camera, these are the 'equivalent' focal lengths on a full frame camera. A lens cannot change it's focal length (except within it's zoom range)



Here here, if you had tried my Sigma 100-300mm then you would have a different opinion of Simga entirely.

CraigLondon wrote:
One additional query if I may - I hope to use the 40D for dusk/long exposure night time shots on a tripod. Excuse the basic question, but will the f2.8 make a measurably larger difference to the f4.0 in these circumstances (i.e. in terms of picture sharpness?).


If you are doing long exposures of dusk/night subjects you almost certainly would NOT want to use the largest aperture on your lens. In these cases one is far more likely to use a smaller aperture - most likely around f/8 on your camera - and extend the exposure time.

While the lens's largest aperture is there to use if you need it (hand held in low light; getting narrowest possible DOF) you would not automatically use it in all low light situations. In the case you describe shooting at f/8 or so on the tripod will produce a generally sharper and more uniform image and will provide greater DOF.

When I do night photography I virtually never boost ISO or shoot at the largest aperture. My starting point is typically f/8 at ISO 100.

Dan

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...

Your decision is made by the above statement. 17-55 f/2.8 IS. The 24-105 is not wide nor fast enough for what you want.

dhphoto wrote:
Whilst the 17-55IS is clearly a very good lens, it is hideously expensive in my opinion (especially in the UK, and if you buy from HK and get a duff one it's awkward)


As an alternate point of view...

The only downsides to the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS that I can see might include: competent build quality is not quite as solid as the Canon L lenses, and it only works on Canon 1.6x cropped sensor bodies.

Regarding the former, while L lenses may be more solidly constructed this lens is not exactly poorly constructed. It is actually quite fine in this regard. Regarding the latter, limitation only seems significant if you are moving very soon to full frame - and is not an issue at all if you will use a cropped sensor body for the foreseeable future.

Upsides of this lens include:

1. Image quality appears to be quite good. One of my favorite examples of this is found at slrgear.com, where you can open interactive blur charts for several of your favorite lenses and compare the results side-by-side. The EFS lens is a _better_ optical performer at all focal lengths and all apertures than either the EF 17-40mm f/4 L or the 16-35mm f/2.8 II L. I know that is difficult for many to accept - it sure surprised me - but take a look and see for yourself.

2. The focal length range is essentially idea for a general lens on a cropped sensor camera, being equivalent to something like 27mm - 88 mm on full frame. The focal length range is also wider than that on the Canon EF alternatives. (I can't speak to the third-party brands.)

3. It provides a f/2.8 maximum aperture. The only more or less equivalent Canon alternative is the 16-35mm f/2.8 II L - and the EFS lens competes quite well with it wide open and throws in IS.

4. It provides image stabilization, which is not available in the alternative lenses that most would consider against this EFS lens. While we all know that the value of IS may be more or less depending on how/what you shoot, for many it is a very useful addition.

With all that in mind, it doesn't seem to me that this lens is really particularly overpriced in comparison to the lenses it competes with.

Dan

Dan, I have nothing against anyone who wants to buy a 17-55IS

I just think, from having held and examined one (not used) and having read much about it's virtues, that the Tamron or the Sigma represent just as good optical quality, without IS, for a third the price.

The 17-55 is indeed an EF-S lens, meaning anyone who wants to go to full frame or even to 1.3 crop must either sell it or leave it in their bag - you can get 3/4 of what you paid on ebay if you sell a mint Tamron or Sigma.

I just think it's a ripoff, and I've been ripped-off myself (I bought a 1Ds3 in the UK so how daft am I) but I just don't think the 17-55IS is worth it.

Take 30% off the price and I'd probably buy one though, although I'd still think that was pricey

David