17-55 or 24-105 at DVinfo.net

Siep Dijkstra · December 23rd, 2009, 05:18 AM

I have this luxery problem that I don't know which one to choose for an allround lens..
I already have the 10-22, 50 1.8 and the 70-200 4.0.

Thanks for any input,
Siep Dijkstra

Jay Houser · December 23rd, 2009, 05:58 AM

The 24-105mm could be used if you ever went to a full frame camera, the 17-55mm would not.

The 24-105mm is also an "L" series lens, probably sharper with superior weather sealing.

Alvin Ang Teng Cheong · December 23rd, 2009, 04:45 PM

Hi Siep,

I just got the 24 - 105 L lens. The build is better, the focus ring is smooth, the zoom is pretty accurate and i think the glass quality is amazing. Plus, the constant F4 aperture helps to give a nice DOF look. Just my 2 cents worth :)

Benjamin Eckstein · December 23rd, 2009, 05:46 PM

I own the 17-55 and it's quite nice but shot with the 24-105 the other week and think it's a great outdoor all-around lens. F4 can be fast enough for interiors but not always but I think it's the perfect range for an outdoor lens when wider is typically less necessary.

Mark Wadlington · December 23rd, 2009, 11:23 PM

I've owned both lenses and the 17-55 was clearly the better lens for me on my 7D. The 24-105 is not nearly wide enough on a crop camera, I also found the 17-55 to be sharper overall throughout the range, plus I use 2.8 in many situations
Good luck!

Daniel Weber · December 24th, 2009, 06:11 AM

I second Mark's observations. I just returned from shooting in Africa for two weeks and the 17-55 was the primary lens that I used.

The only advantage that I see with the 24-105 lens is the longer focal length.

Pick your poison!

Daniel Weber

Dick Mays · December 24th, 2009, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siep Dijkstra

I already have the 10-22, 50 1.8 and the 70-200 4.0.

Siep Dijkstra

Sounds like Santa came early...

Alan Halfhill · March 24th, 2010, 02:09 AM

I have been shooting interviews with the 17-55mm. It is a little short in the tele range. You have to get the camera too close to the person to get a decent close-up. So I just bought the 24-105 as well. Should not be a problem doing interviews with this new lens as it has more range. Most of the time I have enough light for the F4 aperture.

BTW: I love the the 17-55 and plan on using it for Broll or wide shots.

Jon Fairhurst · March 24th, 2010, 10:08 AM

If you *really* want close ups, consider the 100 Macro. :)

Bill Binder · March 24th, 2010, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay Houser

The 24-105mm could be used if you ever went to a full frame camera, the 17-55mm would not.

The 24-105mm is also an "L" series lens, probably sharper with superior weather sealing.

The only reason the 17-55 isn't "L" in my opinion is because it's APS-C. If it weren't for that, it's clearly in the class of an L zoom (and I say that as someone who owns a lot of L-glass and who at one point owned the 17-55mm). It's also f2.8 thru the zoom and IS, so that's awesome, and can't be underestimated. When I only had a crop camera, that was my main walk-around lens, it KICKED @SS as far as I'm concerned -- as good as my current 24-70 L (but maybe I just had a good copy). However, I did end up selling it when I moved to full frame despite keeping my cropped body because I just couldn't justify owning a lens that expensive that couldn't be used on everything (including my EOS 3, heh). Anyway, my main point is not being "L" is not relevant for this lens IMHO.

Sylus Harrington · March 25th, 2010, 01:00 AM

I use the 24-105 when outdoors. Its a little soft at 24mm and CA sometimes develops at 100-105. The IS is pretty good though and everything in between is pretty sharp. Solid lens for sure!

Bill Pryor · March 25th, 2010, 08:29 AM

Considering the lenses you already have, it seems to me the 24-105 would be the best choice, or maybe the 24-70 f2.8, since you already have a lens starting at 70mm. I'd take the faster f-stop over the longer range.

Stephen Mick · March 25th, 2010, 08:47 AM

Agreed, Bill. But that IS system in the 24-105L sure is nice to have if you're shooting handheld stuff.

I keep hearing that a 24-70L with the new hybrid-IS system is coming, but nothing yet.

Andy Wilkinson · March 25th, 2010, 10:12 AM

Yep, that'll be the best lens for interviews if and when it comes - the perfect range on a crop body 7D. I find my otherwise lovely Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS EF-S is sometimes just not long enough and looked hard at the 24-105 initially (but was put off by the F4 aspect).

Stan Chase · March 25th, 2010, 11:17 AM

Look at these charts and adjust the sliders for similar aperture and focal length:

24-105

17-55

It appears to me that the 24-105 doesn't maintain its sharpness past 50mm. I'd rather switch to one of these if I need more reach:

70-200

December 23rd, 2009, 05:18 AM	#1
Siep Dijkstra New Boot Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 5	17-55 or 24-105 I have this luxery problem that I don't know which one to choose for an allround lens.. I already have the 10-22, 50 1.8 and the 70-200 4.0. Thanks for any input, Siep Dijkstra

March 24th, 2010, 02:09 AM	#8
Alan Halfhill Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Sequim, WA Posts: 127	24-105 is better for Interviews. I have been shooting interviews with the 17-55mm. It is a little short in the tele range. You have to get the camera too close to the person to get a decent close-up. So I just bought the 24-105 as well. Should not be a problem doing interviews with this new lens as it has more range. Most of the time I have enough light for the F4 aperture. BTW: I love the the 17-55 and plan on using it for Broll or wide shots.

March 24th, 2010, 10:08 AM	#9
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	If you really want close ups, consider the 100 Macro. :) __________________ Jon Fairhurst

March 25th, 2010, 08:47 AM	#13
Stephen Mick Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 167	Is Agreed, Bill. But that IS system in the 24-105L sure is nice to have if you're shooting handheld stuff. I keep hearing that a 24-70L with the new hybrid-IS system is coming, but nothing yet.

March 25th, 2010, 10:12 AM	#14
Andy Wilkinson Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Cambridge UK Posts: 2,853	Yep, that'll be the best lens for interviews if and when it comes - the perfect range on a crop body 7D. I find my otherwise lovely Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS EF-S is sometimes just not long enough and looked hard at the 24-105 initially (but was put off by the F4 aspect). __________________ Andy K Wilkinson - https://www.shootingimage.co.uk Cambridge (UK) Corporate Video Production

December 23rd, 2009, 05:58 AM	#2
Jay Houser Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: St Paul MN Posts: 41	The 24-105mm could be used if you ever went to a full frame camera, the 17-55mm would not. The 24-105mm is also an "L" series lens, probably sharper with superior weather sealing.

December 23rd, 2009, 04:45 PM	#3
Alvin Ang Teng Cheong Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Singapore Posts: 39	Hi Siep, I just got the 24 - 105 L lens. The build is better, the focus ring is smooth, the zoom is pretty accurate and i think the glass quality is amazing. Plus, the constant F4 aperture helps to give a nice DOF look. Just my 2 cents worth :)

December 23rd, 2009, 05:46 PM	#4
Benjamin Eckstein Major Player Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 380 Images: 1	I own the 17-55 and it's quite nice but shot with the 24-105 the other week and think it's a great outdoor all-around lens. F4 can be fast enough for interiors but not always but I think it's the perfect range for an outdoor lens when wider is typically less necessary.

December 23rd, 2009, 11:23 PM	#5
Mark Wadlington Tourist Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: San Diego, Ca Posts: 4	I've owned both lenses and the 17-55 was clearly the better lens for me on my 7D. The 24-105 is not nearly wide enough on a crop camera, I also found the 17-55 to be sharper overall throughout the range, plus I use 2.8 in many situations Good luck!

December 24th, 2009, 06:11 AM	#6
Daniel Weber Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 696	I second Mark's observations. I just returned from shooting in Africa for two weeks and the 17-55 was the primary lens that I used. The only advantage that I see with the 24-105 lens is the longer focal length. Pick your poison! Daniel Weber

March 25th, 2010, 01:00 AM	#11
Sylus Harrington Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 58	I use the 24-105 when outdoors. Its a little soft at 24mm and CA sometimes develops at 100-105. The IS is pretty good though and everything in between is pretty sharp. Solid lens for sure!

March 25th, 2010, 08:29 AM	#12
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	Considering the lenses you already have, it seems to me the 24-105 would be the best choice, or maybe the 24-70 f2.8, since you already have a lens starting at 70mm. I'd take the faster f-stop over the longer range.

March 25th, 2010, 11:17 AM	#15
Stan Chase Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida, USA Posts: 75	Look at these charts and adjust the sliders for similar aperture and focal length: 24-105 17-55 It appears to me that the 24-105 doesn't maintain its sharpness past 50mm. I'd rather switch to one of these if I need more reach: 70-200 __________________ [T2i/550D] [17-55 IS USM] [Zoom H2] [HoodLoupe/HoodMAG 3.0]