17-55 2.8 or 24-105L???
Hey everyone,
Long time listener, first time caller
. I have a Rebel XSi with the kit lens (18-55 IS) and a 75-300 USM. I've had my setup for about 8 months now and I'm pretty much addicted to photography now. I always loved taking pictures, but now it's more of an addiction!
I know that I'd like to get the 70-200L F4 IS to upgrade the telephoto side of things. The 2.8 would be nice, but a bit too much $$$. My real "dilemma" is deciding on my everyday walk-around lens. I recently went to Rome and snapped about 1000 pics (all with the 18-55, no room for the 75-300), and I found myself wanting slightly more on the telephoto side of things quite a few times. However, in the evening the fast 2.8 would've been nice. I won't be upgrading to full frame anytime soon, so I'm not worried about getting an EF-S only lens.
I continually read reviews and go back and forth between the two lenses, hoping to find some big selling point to make it an easy choice. I guess I could get the 24-105L and also get a 50mm 1.8 for the low light stuff, but that isn't quite as convenient. Is the extra stop of the 2.8 really that valuable and worth sacrificing the extra 49mm for?
Please, someone make up my mind! Any opinions/experience on either would be greatly appreciated.
EC
Long time listener, first time caller
. I have a Rebel XSi with the kit lens (18-55 IS) and a 75-300 USM. I've had my setup for about 8 months now and I'm pretty much addicted to photography now. I always loved taking pictures, but now it's more of an addiction!I know that I'd like to get the 70-200L F4 IS to upgrade the telephoto side of things. The 2.8 would be nice, but a bit too much $$$. My real "dilemma" is deciding on my everyday walk-around lens. I recently went to Rome and snapped about 1000 pics (all with the 18-55, no room for the 75-300), and I found myself wanting slightly more on the telephoto side of things quite a few times. However, in the evening the fast 2.8 would've been nice. I won't be upgrading to full frame anytime soon, so I'm not worried about getting an EF-S only lens.
I continually read reviews and go back and forth between the two lenses, hoping to find some big selling point to make it an easy choice. I guess I could get the 24-105L and also get a 50mm 1.8 for the low light stuff, but that isn't quite as convenient. Is the extra stop of the 2.8 really that valuable and worth sacrificing the extra 49mm for?
Please, someone make up my mind!
Any opinions/experience on either would be greatly appreciated.EC
0
Comments
17mm is significantly wider than 24mm, and on a crop body that is critical.
f/2.8 is twice as fast as f/4.
Only an f/2.8 or faster lens activates the high precision mode of the center AF sensor.
If you're carrying a DSLR, you're carrying a bag. If you're carrying a bag, it may as well have a 70-200/4LIS in it too. At half the weight and much less volume of the 2.8, it's very packable and easy to justify bringing along. Oh, and it's sharper than the 2.8 too!
The 17-55 and 70-200 are an unbeatable combo. There is no one lens that will give you the range and the quality.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
El Comat, welcome to the Digital Grin.
For a Canon crop 1.6x camera, without a doubt, I recommend the EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM as "the" standard zoom. The f2.8 is useful even without the IS and focus is fast and sure in just about any light down to very dim. IS seems to assist the focus as well as improving camera shake (of course).
The center AF dot on the XSi/450D is of the high-precision type meaning that lenses of f2.8 or faster are twice as accurate for AF compared to lenses slower than f2.8 maximum aperture.
The 17-55mm plus a 70-200mm lens is a very versatile combination that I have and I don't miss the 55-70mm gap at all.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
It is like I bought a new camera. I can't say anything about the other lens but I vouch for the 17-55 all day long.
<Insert some profound quote here to try and seem like a deep thinker>
Michael Wachel Photography
Facebook
I own both the 17-55 and the 24-105. The reason is that I don't have the 70-200. The way I use my pair of lenses is 17-55 as indoor walkaround (wide end and low light), and the 24-105 as outdoor walkaround (extra tele reach in daylight levels). If I had a 70-200 already, I would have bought the 17-55 and never gotten the 24-105.
I have personally found the f/2.8 to be valuable in low light without flash. A lot of times, f/4 doesn't cut it for me. I also have the 50mm 1.8, but its focusing system hunts too much in the dark and it has no image stabilization, and that combination of limitations often negates the speed advantage of the f/1.8. My 50mm 1.8 is now relegated to when I want to make the Rebel as compact as possible.
Also I agree that the 17mm wide end is necessary if you really want wide on a Rebel. The 24mm end of the 24-105 is often not as wide as I wish, on a crop sensor. That's another reason why if I already had a 70-200, it is the 24-105 that I would skip.
The beauty of the kit you have at the moment is that you can sling it over your shoulder any time whether you intend to take photos or not. No problem with airlines, or Roman thieves, or being conspicuous when you take your shots. My daughter-in-law has the 18-55 IS and it is a neat lens and she has taken great shots with it.
If you have the itch for great glass the 17-55 is better - I use this as my walkaround on a 40D. However, it is much bigger and heavier and draws much more attention.
You said your main itch was to upgrade the telephoto side. Not sure whether you mean that a real telephoto (your 300mm) is too bulky to carry around, or that you miss the IS - which I would, or you just need to stretch the 55mm a bit which I can well imagine.
I used to own a 17-85mm "kit" lens which was as good as the 18-55 IS and had a nice 30mm extra reach. Nowadays I misuse my 100mm macro lens as a short telephoto and it works well - plus it takes macro and is not problematic to carry around. Often I pack my G9 for casual use; it has 2.8 and goes from 18-200mm (I think).
Like you, I considered the 24-105 for my DSLR and dismissed it - I would not like to lose my 17-55 and 105mm won't do the telephoto job properly and I use the 17mm more often than I would have thought. Costly to say, Ziggy's set up is probably ideal but that f4 70-200 with IS is darned expensive and still big to carry around. Will give me some great shots though!
- Typically, the larger the focal length to poorer is the optical performance at one end or the other or at both ends or across the entire range - depends on the manufacturer and the lens
- The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a stellar performer indoors and, within it's focal range, outdoors. The lens is decently (or better) sharp at f/2.8 at all focal lengths - making it a great indoor lens. But, as the OP has noted, that range can be a little short in some outdoor situations. The IS on this lens is good - good for at least a couple of stops. This lens does have it's problems; the most significant one being one of durability. There are lots of stories out there of the IS assembly failing and needing to be replaced. I've had to have the zoom assembly replaced on mine. Also, there's the rumor of it collecting dust inside the front element (and that you can reduce this by always having a filter mounted).
- The EF 24-105 f/4L is longer and is sharp across the entire focal length, even when wide open. However, it's "wide open" is "only" f/4 which can cause problems when attempting to stop action in dimmer environs. Remember, IS only mitigates camera motion, it does nothing for stopping subject motion. I've also found the 24-105 to be a very, very good lens for portrait photogrpahy, especially for head-shots and head-and-shoulder portraits.
- Regardless of the variant (f/2.8 vs f/4 and IS vs. non-IS), any one of the four different EF 70-200 lenses is said to be a stellar performer. My f/2.8 IS certainly is. But, each lens has it's short comings.
- If you go with f/2.8, you pay for it in the weight of the lens.
- If you go for the f/4, you pay with maximum aperture restrictions
- IS will always add weight, complexity, and another point of failure to the lens
- Of course, you could look at the EF 24-70 f/2.8L. It's longer on the wide end than the 17-55 and shorter on the long end than the 24-105 and it doesn't have IS. But, it is longer then the 17-55 (or your 18-55) and it does have the f/2.8 aperture. A good copy is said to be a sweet treat. I don't have one, yet, so I can't talk from personal experience.
My point is, with a DSLR, you are probably not going to find the perfect, single-lens solution to any photographic challenge.I can, and do, heartily recommend each of the three lenses I have but I use each in different situations and there's not a lot of over-lap in this use.
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
I am always hearing bad things about the 17-55 sucking dust. Can you deal with that?
I think the point about 2.8 and autofocus is worth considering. I guess there is better and best. However, in my experience with a 40D, focusing is never bad or worse, enough to be a problem, whatever the aperture and the light.
My feeling is that the 24-105 is surprisingly useful in lower light in the situations you seem to be shooting in. I suggest you try it. You can't always know from the specs alone if a lens is going to satisfy your needs or not. The 24-105 is a very fine lens, and it is not "either/or" for the 70-200 f4 IS, which for longish telephoto is unsurpassed.
My rant!
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I have the 17-55, I've been shooting weddings with it for about 18 months now. Probably taken about 30,000 photographs with this lens.
From my experience:
Yes, there is some dust inside it. The lens expands as you zoom out so it inevitably draws air into it.
However, I've never had any images where any of this dust has been apparent. Maybe if you shoot plain white surfaces with a very small aperture it might become apparent, but I haven't seen it. So I think this is not something you should be concerned about.
Yes, there is some distortion at 17mm, but nothing like what there would be on a full frame camera at 17mm. Incidentally, put the 24-105 on a 5d and you'll get similar distortion at the wide end to 17mm on the 40d etc. I think you will find 24mm quite restrictive on a crop frame camera.
I would definitely go for the 17-55 over the 24-105, especially if you have no intention to get a full frame body any time soon.
The 17-55 does collect dust. I've had mine for about 2 years. It has an annoying amount of dust inside it, and behind the 2nd element as well. But I've never seen it in any image. I never use a UV filter, so ymmv. Someday I'll do the DIY dustectomy here:
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/drp
I went from a 24-70 to the 17-55 and the gain on the wide end is very significant. The distortion is pretty minimal there too. The IQ of this lens allows me to overlook the dust.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Thanks for all the opinions, folks! Keep them coming!
EC