I am shooting with my 60D and kit lens of EF-S 18-135 (I also have a 50mm f1.8 that I love it) and I am thinking to upgrade to a better walk around lens with a better IQ.
I am not a professional and I shoot almost everything from kids, pets, sport, occasions, landscape, portraits, etc... So a general purpose lens will be good choice for me.
I did my research and I find these preferences (17-55, 15-85, 24-70 or 24-105) to be a good option for general purpose lens.
1) I am thinking to upgrade to a full frame body (maybe in 2 years) so ef-s lens will not be a good idea for me to buy. Also I've heard about dust issue of 17-55.
2) The f2.8 on 24-70 is really a deal breaker. Also in future I can complete my gear with 70-200 to cover a full range of focal distance. (And maybe an ultra wide lens and... )
3) The IS and longer focal length of 24-105 is a good choice but its f4
I think the 24-105 is a good choice but what I read from different reviews people who have both lenses they use 24-70 more and like its picture more.
I think for now I will get the 24-105 to cover a wide range of focal length. The IS will compensate for low light condition and when I want to buy a 70-200, I will sell 24-105 and get the 24-70.
You're overthinking it. I've owned crop cameras since 2005 and FF since 2008 - with several lenses to use as my general "walkaround" lens. 24 and 28mm aren't really wide enough on a crop, and the 24-70 doesn't have the nickname of "brick" for nothing. Choose the right tool for the job you need done now, and worry about selling that tool 2 years from now when it happens.
The 17-50 is a very good lens, and the IS/2.8 combo are great for general purpose shooting. I highly recommend it.
Another vote for 17/55 IS on your crop. Buy for today; the lens will still have value in 2 years. More importantly; you will get some great results. A true non-L with L zoom iq.
I must say I've been very happy with my 24-105L on my crop body. I find it does well enough on the wide end for a majority of what I shoot. I do have the 16-35L for when I need something wider. I owned the 17-55 IS for a short time as well and I have shot that focal length extensively on a D300. I have found the extra length the 24-105 gives me more than makes up for the lack of wide end for me. Being able to get the tighter framing is really nice for people and sports shots. I do really miss f2.8 though. The 24-105 is a pretty good bargain and leaves the FF door open for you. I would take a look at your images though and see how many are shot at focal lengths of 24 and greater. If you shoot a lot in the 17-24 range than the 17-55 is hard to beat. Great IQ, good build, f2.8 AND IS! When I looked at my images, the majority of wide shots were not really keepers (more memory shots than anything) and the keepers were generally beyond 24mm...
Hope that helps.
If you can carry a 24-70 f/2.8 around all day around your neck, you're a stronger person than I am. With a crop body, I used the 17-40 f/4L as my walking around lens; perfect weight and quality, and acceptable range for a walking around lens. The price is right, too. I found 24 not nearly wide enough too often.
If you're worried about what to do when/if you move to FF, get a 17-40 (or 17-55) used, and you will be able to sell it for not much of a loss when/if you want to.
If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, and want a lens that will be good with a FF, get a 16-28 f/2.8L. Excellent lens, but pricey and 82mm filter size.
I probably wouldn't be spending money on a full frame standard zoom now if you're going to continue to shoot crop for years. That 24-70 in particular is about to be replaced in weeks with a much better Mark II version, which will presumably be much cheaper to buy 2 years from now (Canon charge a premium on newly introduced lenses to recoup their R&D costs).
I've only handled the current 24-70 on 1 series and 5 series bodies and thought it unwieldy on those. I guess I'd have to put up with it if I shot weddings for money or something like that. I imagine it's worse on the small 60D.
Over 2 years it's hard to predict retail prices but there may be good deals on the 24-105 available now because of "white box" copies split off from kits of the new 5D Mark III. As always, bear in mind that the 1.6 crop factor is enough that having a use for a lens on one format does not mean you'd have a use for it on another. In your position I might be tempted to pick one of those up now and not even shoot with it until I got a full frame body.
If your thinking about full frame in the future then go for the 24-70 or 24-105. I have been using crop sensors for the last 8 years and in this range i have been thru 28-135, 17-40, 35 1.4, 85 1.8 24-105. Sold all of them and now use the 24-70. Even on a 1.6 body the 24-70 is a superb lens, 2.8 across the range, great colours, saturation etc. The 24-70 covers a really nice range and i find its an amazingly flexible lens. 24 is wide enough for my needs, F2.8 is fast enough as below this i find the DOF is just too thin and 70 it just enough reach that i don't find myself constantly wanting to switch lens all the time when i want to zoom in a little. The 24-70/70-200 is such an amazing combination and its hard to beat. Even although the MKII version of the 24-70 is coming the MKI is still an excellent lens.
Thank you all for your feedback.
I did a homework and looked up my photos I don't have a lot of shots within 18-24 range and with 24-xx I will not find an empty range of wider than 24mm.
From what I see the votes are for 17-55 on a crop body and I think I will go for a used 17-55 rather than 24-105 or "brick" 24-70 and start to save for a 70-200 for a longer range.
I still have the option of selling whatever I didn't like especially if buy them used the loss will be the minimal.
I shoot with the 7d and resisted the 17-55 for quite sometime. I finally broke down during the rebate period and got one. I was quite astounded with the sharpness of this lens on a crop body. I own and use both the 24-70 and the 24-105 and have to admit the 17-55 on the 7d is sharper. Keep in mind the 24-70 is amost 1000g and no IS. The 17-55 is lighter and has IS. My vote is to get the 17-55.
I bought the 7D and the 17-55. I shot the 17-55 for quite some time and ended up selling it to get the 24-70. While I do love shooting with the 24-70, if I shoot the entire day, my wrist is hurting pretty bad by the end of it.
I had the 24-105 with my 20D, and then 40D. I loved the results from that lens. I sold it and got the 17-55 though and haven't regretted it once.
Forget dust. There are threads here that show how to clean them out if needed, but I've had a good B+W filter on since day one and see no dust inside. This is my "stand by" lens. It is always on the camera, rarely with a lens cap, and sits out in the house ready in case the kid is doing something worth capturing. It would have dust inside by now if it were going to.
I own 7D and 24-70mm but that is because I'm going full frame very soon. The 24-70 is amazing but I would highly recommend the 17-55mm instead if you're not going full frame at all.
17-55is is my recommendation for your 60D. It is a perfect lens for that camera. I've got a 17-55IS and I got no dust inside the front element. And even if I had it is normal and does not show in pictures.
Don't overthink it. Just buy 17-55IS now. There are people on POTN and HERE trying to trade their 24-105 for 17-55. There will be plenty of 24-105 as it has been a kit lens for 5DM2 and 5DM3. Its priced exactly the same used as 17-55 which has never been a kit lens. But 17-55is and don't worry about it. When the time to switch to FF comes, you will just trade 17-55 for 24-105, it will be quick and easy trade that would take you a day or two to accomplish. Or you can sell your 17-55 used for $800-850 and buy used 24-105 for the same amount - your choice. 17-55 will be be cheaper, if anything Canon and Nikon raise prices for the lenses every couple of years, so you are safe there.
Another one of those "I'm gonna buy an FF lens now because I'm thinking about going FF in the future" thread.
Here's my suggestion. Buy a lens that'll suit your needs NOW, not two years later. You can always sell it later.
armenaaa wrote:
The IS will compensate for low light condition...
Just make sure noone's moving in your photo otherwise they'll look like ghosts. That means you can rule out shooting your kids in low light, specially after they just had their sugar hit. You can probably forget shooting sport in low light too.
My point is, IS doesn't always compensate for low light condition. Faster lens always means faster shutter and/or lower ISO which equals to better image quality.
I wanted to ask you since it's been 4 months since you last posted. Did you get the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM and if so what do you think now? I've been asking the same question as your initially posed. I have a new 60D with the 18-55 kit lens and want to upgrade. I just purchased an EF 70-200 F/4 IS USM for the long end and love its sharpness and quality. For my walk around do I go for an EF 24-105 F/4 IS USM (for it's build quality and weather sealing) or a EFS 17-55 F/2.8 IS USM (prone to dust and not weather sealed)?
I had the Tamron 17-50 (same basic range as the 17-55) and the 24-105, and sold them both to get the 15-85. I like the fact is is both wider and longer than the 17-55, both of which I found important for a walk around lens. Image quality is outstanding (generally considered about the same as the 17-55) although it is slow at the long end.
My suggestion would be 17-55 unless you are planning to switch to the FF very soon.
I use my 17-55 on my 7D a lot and it is great lens. While 15-85 is more versatile outdoor, indoor 17-55 is a king.
)