p.2 #1 · Choose between EFS 17-55 F2.8 or EF 24-105 F4L
Since you already own a 24-70 & 70-200 Id probably get neither the 24-105 or the 17-55. I'd probably get a Efs 10-22. But if it had to be one of the above it would be the 17-55 hands down.
p.2 #3 · Choose between EFS 17-55 F2.8 or EF 24-105 F4L
John Mills wrote:
Wouldn't the 17-40mm be a better choice than the 24-105mm as it is much closer in focal length to the 17-55mm? And it is always good value for the price.
The 17-40L is not that much less expensive, it's slower, not nearly as sharp, and it lacks IS; how is that a better choice than the 17-55 being considered? It makes perfect sense on FF; I do want one. But for crop? Can't imaging grabbing that lens for a crop.
p.2 #4 · Choose between EFS 17-55 F2.8 or EF 24-105 F4L
Joseph Garcin wrote:
Sigma 18-35 1.8 is a winner. I'd check it out over the 17-55. Lose some range, gain some speed.
But more significantly, you gain image quality. That's the 18-35/1.8 Art's specialty- it's as sharp as any prime in it's range on crop, across the frame, except Sigma's own 35/1.4 Art. The 17-55 is very capable, sure, but it's not nearly that sharp.
F/1.8 isn't that big of a deal, really, and losing IS and reach won't appeal to most; but to get all that in an incredibly well built package with prime lens performance for less than a decent prime? That's a steal.
And remember that the OP has a 50/1.8 I, which aside from it's five-bladed aperture is otherwise a very nice lens; he won't miss the extra range, but he would benefit from the greater image quality, in Sigma's short-fast standard zoom.
p.2 #5 · Choose between EFS 17-55 F2.8 or EF 24-105 F4L
johnctharp wrote:
But more significantly, you gain image quality. That's the 18-35/1.8 Art's specialty- it's as sharp as any prime in it's range on crop, across the frame, except Sigma's own 35/1.4 Art. The 17-55 is very capable, sure, but it's not nearly that sharp.
F/1.8 isn't that big of a deal, really, and losing IS and reach won't appeal to most; but to get all that in an incredibly well built package with prime lens performance for less than a decent prime? That's a steal.
And remember that the OP has a 50/1.8 I, which aside from it's five-bladed aperture is otherwise a very nice lens; he won't miss the extra range, but he would benefit from the greater image quality, in Sigma's short-fast standard zoom....Show more →
The 18-35/1.8 is that much sharper than the 17-55/2.8? From what I've read and from the replies above that the 17-55/2.8 IS has very good image quality. Does that mean that I'll cut myself on the photos from the Sigma?
Edit: I've read the reviews of the Sigma 18-35/F1.8 on both DPReview and The-Digital-Picture and it does sound impressive. I am a bit concerned with the lack of IS, but the F1.8 is appealing to me. Another choice added to my dilemma of what to purchase.
The loss of reach of the Sigma would not be a deal breaker, I have the telephoto covered.
What my original question all boils down to is I want something lighter than my 1DsIII/24-70mm combo to use as a walking around camera.
p.2 #6 · Choose between EFS 17-55 F2.8 or EF 24-105 F4L
pliukait wrote:
The 18-35/1.8 is that much sharper than the 17-55/2.8? From what I've read and from the replies above that the 17-55/2.8 IS has very good image quality. Does that mean that I'll cut myself on the photos from the Sigma?
Edit: I've read the review of the Sigma 18-35/F1.8 on both DPReview and The-Digital-Picture and it does sound impressive. I am a bit concerned with the lack of IS, but the F1.8 is appealing to me. Another choice added to my dilemma of what to purchase.
The loss of reach of the Sigma would not be a deal breaker, I have the telephoto covered.
What my original question all boils down to is I want something lighter than my 1DsIII/24-70mm combo to use as a walking around camera.
I would also recommend you reading reviews of the Sigma lens from DxOMArk and lenstip as they are more quantitative oriented and therefore make it easier to compare with other lenses.
For handling while the sigma is a a bit heavier and longer, but it does not extend when rooms which is always nicer to handle.
p.2 #7 · Choose between EFS 17-55 F2.8 or EF 24-105 F4L
pliukait wrote:
John, thanks. I do have a 50mm F1.8 prime, the old version with the metal mount. As you said that would fill the gap nicely. The Sigma is really that much better?
I've read that the 17-55 is an 'L' lens in EFS colours, with excellent IQ, so if the Sigma beats it, then it must be spectacular.
Regards.....Pete
I started with a 30D +24-105 seven years ago. It soon became apparent that it wasn't wide enough, so I added the EFS 17/55 f/2.8.
I now also have a 5DII. The 5DII usually gets the 24-105, and the 30D almost always gets the 17/55.
Because of the f/2.8 speed of the 17/55, and the ability to shoot at 640 easily, I don't use flash at all for indoor family shots (don't even have one).
My biggest wish is that the 17/55 would fit the 5DII.
As for build quality, no, the 17/55 is not an L lens, and it has quite of bit of high quality plastic, but as long as I have a 1.6 crop Canon, I will keep that lens - it's damn sharp and fast.
Yours is a great example of a question that is unanswerable in a definitive way absent some context about your intended use and what you see as the attractions of either lens.
Both a fine lenses, but you should realize that the excellent 24-105 barely provides any wide angle coverage at all, while it goes considerably longer than the 17-55. Is that what you need?
p.2 #10 · Choose between EFS 17-55 F2.8 or EF 24-105 F4L
gdanmitchell wrote:
Yours is a great example of a question that is unanswerable in a definitive way absent some context about your intended use and what you see as the attractions of either lens.
Both a fine lenses, but you should realize that the excellent 24-105 barely provides any wide angle coverage at all, while it goes considerably longer than the 17-55. Is that what you need?
Dan
Hi Dan, I realize this was an open-ended question, I really wasn't looking for a definitive answer, just people's opinions on what they would get given the choices I had provided. And I got some great opinions plus some options that I hadn't even thought of! Case in point: the Sigma 18-35/F1.8, I never even heard of that lens before.
I summed up what was my intended purpose by this statement: What my original question all boils down to is I want something lighter than my 1DsIII/24-70mm combo to use as a walking around camera. in a post that I made on Aug 14, 2013 at 07:49 PM.
p.2 #11 · Choose between EFS 17-55 F2.8 or EF 24-105 F4L
Jo Dilbeck wrote:
No question about it, for a crop camera, the 17-55 is the way to go. Were you buying full frame, it would be 24-105 OR the new 24-70 F4 IS. When I shot crop, I LOVED the 17-55, it was the saddest thing to see it go when I went full frame.
Jo
+1. IMHO the 17-55 is a better lens than the 24-105 or 24-70 (original), and the FL is more appropriate for a cropper. This from an owner of all 3.
p.2 #13 · Choose between EFS 17-55 F2.8 or EF 24-105 F4L
My two cents:
I consider a nominal aperture on a crop body lens to be not as "good" for purposes of bokeh and low light performance as the same aperture on a full frame, and personally a maximum aperture of f/2.8 is better for a walk-around crop lens.
The reason is that when I go from full frame to crop sensors I lose in terms of bokeh (assuming adjustment in focal length for similar distance and framing) and low-light detail (because of lower sensor sensitivity). Both of these can be ameliorated by shooting with a wider aperture. So for example, assuming the same distance to subject and framing, if I want a similar low light sensitivity or bokeh that I would get using f/5.6 on a full frame camera, I would need to open up to at least f/4.0 on my crop camera.
Also, for a "walk-around" lens I want a framing that goes from moderately wide angle to moderately telephoto, which for me means the lens should cover at least 18mm to 50mm.
I had the 17-55mm IS 2.8 and I thought it was great. At the time it had no real third party competitors, but I understand Tamron and Sigma both make good lenses in that range now.
p.2 #17 · Choose between EFS 17-55 F2.8 or EF 24-105 F4L
If I read your first post correctly is sounds like you already own a 1Ds3 so you will be shooting both full frame and crop, correct?
IMO for a crop-only shooter either of those two lenses (the new Sigma or the 17-55 IS) would be an excellent choice, however, if you're intending to shoot a lot of landscapes with this lens and you own both crop and FF bodies I would not dismiss the 17-40L.
The 17-40L is weather sealed (with a filter), better built and...probably most important of all IMO...makes a nice wide angle option for your 1Ds3 (something I personally would not be without for landscape photography).
As for IQ differences...I have owned and shot landscapes with both the 17-55 IS and 17-40L side-by-side on one of my former 7D bodies to compare them and from F/5.6 on my 17-40L was actually a bit better at the corners/edges (probably not too surprising given it is a FF lens on a crop camera). I actually preferred it over the 17-55 IS for landscape photos on the 7D (although IMO the 17-55 IS is a great lens and is a better all-around lens for a crop-only shooter).
One potential downside to the 17-40L (or the Sigma) is that with no IS it may not be as useful as a video lens on the 70D when shooting offhand.
p.2 #18 · Choose between EFS 17-55 F2.8 or EF 24-105 F4L
I voted for the 17-55 f/2.8. The wider FoV and faster aperture compared to the 24-105 f/4L lead me to choose it, and it's my most-used lens.
The small gap in focal length from 55mm to the 70mm of my 70-200 hasn't proven to be a serious issue, and since my next body will probably be a full-frame camera I can keep the 17-55 on my 7D and put the 70-200 on the FF, and -- due to the crop-factor difference -- I'll have a seamless FoV from 28-200 full-frame-equivalent without having to stop shooting to change lenses.
p.2 #19 · Choose between EFS 17-55 F2.8 or EF 24-105 F4L
If I have to live with a cropper, I would have chosen a 15-85 as my general all-around zoom lens. I once had 15-85 and 17-55 at the same time and I found myself using 15-85 much more. Price-wise, it's the cheapest among all premium-quality options. Built is much better than 17-55 too.
p.2 #20 · Choose between EFS 17-55 F2.8 or EF 24-105 F4L
Wahoowa wrote:
If I have to live with a cropper, I would have chosen a 15-85 as my general all-around zoom lens. I once had 15-85 and 17-55 at the same time and I found myself using 15-85 much more. Price-wise, it's the cheapest among all premium-quality options. Built is much better than 17-55 too.
I loved mine (and miss it!), but I don't miss that crop sensor, which the slower 15-85 exacerbated. If I had to pick up just one standard zoom for crop again, it'd be the 17-55; but the OP has other options available, as would I if I picked up a cropper in the future to complement my 6D. For his uses, the 18-35 looks very nice indeed.
