17-55 or 24-105?

[Mr. Pickles]

Someone at work just got a hand-me-down 20D and wanted a good lens for it for shooting around the house type stuff. They know a bit about photography.

Anyway, they asked me an often asked question. Which is better? And with that, comes the players....

Canon 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S or the Canon 24-105 f/4 L

I'm not Canon shooter anymore, and it does look like a good "battle". They don't care about the S in EF-S and it not working on "other" Canon cameras. Not an deal they say. The f/2.8 is a good thing, as is wider. The longer length of the 24-105 woul dbe nice too, and it is labeled an L lens, which should indicate a better optic than the EF-S shorter one.

Any Canon user thoughts on this?

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

...and it is labeled an L lens, which should indicate a better optic than the EF-S shorter one.

...which, in this case, ain't true: the 17-55 has similar high-class optical elements (UD, Aspherical) inside as an L lens, but because it is EF-S it cannot be labelled L in Canon's thoughts, the only thing not-so L is the build quality, which is pretty decent, but not up to L quality. Some have reported dust getting behind the front lens element, but I have yet to experience any dust.

IMO the 17-55 is THE walkaraound lens for a 1.6x crop camera, perfect length from landscape to portraits. The 17-55 is extremely sharp, from wide-open F2.8 on, so you can actually use the F2.8 of this lens. At the penalty of some vignetting at the wide and tele zoom end, but, if annoying, this can be easily remedied in either Photoshop or Canon DPP if the image is shot in RAW. The vignetting is gone from ~F3.5-F4.5 on, so for 'normal' use this is not a biggy

The 24-105F4L is a very good lens also, also sharp and useable from wide open - F4.0- on. It obviously has no wide end, but a nice long range to compensate.

Although an L, the 24-105 is not as weather-sealed as the 24-70F2.8L, but weather-resistant it is, when you put a (protect/UV) filter on top.

The 24-105 comes with a hood and a lens pouch, the hood for the 17-55 (EW-83J) is extra and $$$/€€€

Both have the latest generation 3-stop IS, which works very well on both lenses.

...*my* choice is always 'the faster glass', I would opt for the 17-55 and add something like a 70-300IS or any 70-200 (or the new 55-250IS when on a budget ??) for some tele-capabilities. But I can fully understand people that like the reach of the 24-105 more, and add a 18-55 kitlens for the really wide capabilities, and perhaps a 50F1.8 to have something fast for portraits/low light (and the same 70-300/70-200/55-250 for 'extra' tele...)...

A very personal choice, highly dependant of the shooter's preferred zoomrange...

Some tests to read ?? The 24-105 is listed under Canon EF Zoom Lens reviews, the 17-55 under the EF-S review section

...hope this helps them, *my* €0.02 worth...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[Doug Johncox]

I have the 17-55 and love it. A great walk around lens. For a crop camera it is great. The lens does have a bit of trouble with flare. I just got back from Ontario, Canada and it worked well at below zero(F) temps. USM worked well in the cold. I do not own the other lens and can not comment on it.

[dougsmit]

I have the 24-105 and like it but would not suggest it unless they also have something wider (I have the Tokina 12-24 but the new IS version of the 18-55 would work also). You can never tell someone what to buy unless they first tell you what they want to shoot. I find 24mm too long for enough shots that I would not make it my only lens.

[EOS_JD]

I really like the 24-105. It is great in the studio as wll as a walkatound lens and it's very sharp!

I would like to get the faster 17-55 too as i feel both have their uses however it is a tough choice.

Max described everything well. If you have a wider lens (I use the 10-22) then the 24-104 will be a fine purchase. If however you don't the 17-55 may be a better buy and add a fast 70-200 and you have a pretty nice range in two quality lenses.

Nice choice to have. The shooter needs to decide on range v speed.

[Mr. Pickles]

I will pass this thread along to the parties that be that came from the P&S ranks. I don't think they are used to really wide, or really "long range". I think they had a 3 to 4x zoomer, so these fit that bill.

Good thoughts all....

[richardpcrowe]

I purchased this lens in order to have a one lens - one camera travel unit. I have the 24-70mm f/2.8L lens but the wide end is a bit limiting for travel (although it does have a better long end).

I fell in instant love with my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and this has become my go-to glass.

It is much lighter and more compact than the 24-70L

It has a wider end which removes the need for carrying a wide lens in many circumstances.

The IS is very helpful. This really surprised me because I never really considered IS as needed in a lens with focal lengths this short. However the IS combined with the constant f/2.8 aperture makes this a pretty darn good available light lens.

Additionally, if you pair this lens with either the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens or the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens; you will have a lightweight lens battery which will carry you through most photographic needs.

[jfrancho]

Most of the point and shoots have an effective FOV comparable to a 28-105, so the L lens may be the most comfortable choice.

[DrJiveTurkey]

When I had an APS-C camera I like the 17-55 2.8 over the 24-105 f/4 because of the 1 stop light advantage more so than the range. You give up a little on the long end but get a lot on the wide.

[Imagesgranted]

Without question the 24-105 I.S L lens my copy is faultless razor sharp it matches fully sealed and has travelled all over the world with me. A Trully great lens in my opinion.

[richardpcrowe]

Originally Posted by richardpcrowe

I purchased this lens in order to have a one lens - one camera travel unit. I have the 24-70mm f/2.8L lens but the wide end is a bit limiting for travel (although it does have a better long end).

I fell in instant love with my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and this has become my go-to glass.

It is much lighter and more compact than the 24-70L

It has a wider end which removes the need for carrying a wide lens in many circumstances.

The IS is very helpful. This really surprised me because I never really considered IS as needed in a lens with focal lengths this short. However the IS combined with the constant f/2.8 aperture makes this a pretty darn good available light lens.

Additionally, if you pair this lens with either the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens or the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens; you will have a lightweight lens battery which will carry you through most photographic needs.

I still think that the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is the best choice for general photo situations however, for studio work (portraits, animals, still life and products) I do prefer my 24-70mm f/2.8L.

The image quality is about equal but, I do not need the wide capability of the 17-55mm lens when I am shooting in my studio. I have a lot of room since my studio is part of a large RV garage - so a wide lens is not really of paramount importance.

The extra weight of the 24-70L is of no consequence in my studio work since I am not holding or carrying the camera for hours at a time.

I do like the extra 15mm on the long side of the 24-70L for head and shoulders portraiture and for photographing dogs. IMO there is less distortion at the longer focal lengths, I can stay farther away from my subject (especially good with dogs) and I have less problems lighting - since I have a longer camera to subject distance.

I also like the capability of 1:3.5 imagery from the 24-70L instead of the maximum 1:6 ratio offered by the 17-55mm. I can often shoot smaller items without resorting to a macro lens.

IMO, there is no one lens that is perfect for all situations. Chosing photo equipment is a series of choices and compromises. The best we can expect is a piece of equipment that suits us most for most of our shooting.

[swampler]

Personally, I feel the 17-55 is too short at the long end and 24-105 is too wide at the wide end, for a crop camera. I'm leaning toward the 17-85 as the focal range is excellent, but I'm holding off because of the variable aperture. May be a non-issue though as a general purpose lens where I can use flash.

[dougsmit]

Opinion: Those who need to ask for advice as to a first lens may not yet be in a position to appreciate the top of the line models. My 'answer' would be the question of how absolutely necessary it is for the answer to be just one lens. Canon is currently selling a two lens kit with the well regarded new IS kit lens pair (18-55 IS and 55-250 IS) and Nikon has a similar package (both at Costco as of yesterday). The body and both lenses sell for about what one of the mentioned lenses cost. If the person is really ready for a $1000 lens, perhaps they might select one and fill the resultant gap with the IS kit lens as appropriate. Don't get me wrong: I have the 24-105 and find it a good lens but it will not be my only lens as long as I am using a 1.6x camera. It was made to be the kit lens of the 5D. On a crop camera, you need something at least 18mm on the bottom end. The 24-105 AND a ~12-24 range lens is a good combination for someone with $1500 to spend while the previously mentioned IS kit pair is the way to go for those wanting to spend a lot less. Someone will point out that there are 18-200 or so zooms offered but quality reports suggest they should be reserved for those absolutely allergic to changing lenses.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by dougsmit

Someone will point out that there are 18-200 or so zooms offered but quality reports suggest they should be reserved for those absolutely allergic to changing lenses.

all welll said!



Kindest regards!

Max@Home