Canon 17-55 v 24-105

canon400d

Tell me what you think about the differences between the 17-55 2.8 and the 24-105 F/4. The reason I am asking is I have the 17-55 and I have the opportunity to get a 24-105L F/4. Is it sensible to own the two. I am using a 40D.
Regards
Bob

Candid Arts

I own the 24-105. It is a great lens.

Do you find yourself needing the extra reach of the 105mm vs the 55mm? Also...do you find yourself not using the f/2.8 as much because you want a wider DOF? Are you shooting in a lot of low light situations where you would need the f/2.8? Let me tell you, that 24-105 LOVES the light...and it needs it. Not a great low light lens. But a great lens for walking around in daylight.

They both have their benefits and down falls. Are you planning on upgrading to a FF body soon?

Figure out how and what you shoot most often and that will answer your question.

Nikolai

canon400d wrote:

Tell me what you think about the differences between the 17-55 2.8 and the 24-105 F/4. The reason I am asking is I have the 17-55 and I have the opportunity to get a 24-105L F/4. Is it sensible to own the two. I am using a 40D.
Regards
Bob

The questsions are:
1) what do you shoot?
2) what other glass do you have/plan to have?
3) how long you are gonna stay with a non FF body?

Scott_Quier

I have both. They do not over-lap in function as much as you might think. The big differences are the FL at the short end and the maximum aperture.

Disclaimer: YMMV

For me, the 17-55 is a great lens to use indoors and as a general walking around lens. But, you already know this. It also works well as a portrait lens, depending on how comfortable your client/model is in front of a camera. There have been times, both indoors and out when this lens has been found wanting on the long end.

The 24-105. The simple stuff first. The f/4 pretty much keeps this lens in the bag if I'm shooting indoors without flash. It's just a bit slow. On a cropper, the short end is a little long indoors as well. However, outdoors, this lens really shines. The lens is (can be) very sharp wide-open and it's just a wonder to use in all cases except where you need to be very wide.

I bought my 24-105 after I had already been using the 17-55 for the better part of a couple of years and I still don't regret it. I think, if you should buy it, you will be quite pleased as well.

canon400d

Scott_Quier wrote:

I have both. They do not over-lap in function as much as you might think. The big differences are the FL at the short end and the maximum aperture.

Disclaimer: YMMV

For me, the 17-55 is a great lens to use indoors and as a general walking around lens. But, you already know this. It also works well as a portrait lens, depending on how comfortable your client/model is in front of a camera. There have been times, both indoors and out when this lens has been found wanting on the long end.

The 24-105. The simple stuff first. The f/4 pretty much keeps this lens in the bag if I'm shooting indoors without flash. It's just a bit slow. On a cropper, the short end is a little long indoors as well. However, outdoors, this lens really shines. The lens is (can be) very sharp wide-open and it's just a wonder to use in all cases except where you need to be very wide.

I bought my 24-105 after I had already been using the 17-55 for the better part of a couple of years and I still don't regret it. I think, if you should buy it, you will be quite pleased as well.

Thanks Candid and Niks. I am retired Scott and I just love photography, I wish I had made this my career rather than the legal profession. I love my 17-55 and I very rarely shoot indoors to use the 2.8. I have always had it as my walk around at all times. However, I spend most of my time following the motor rallies and at times I have to use the 17-55 rather than the 70-200 F4. I just thought that the 24-105 would be a good comprompise between the two. To be honest I have never really had to use the 2.8 but at least I know it is there if need be.
Regards
Bob

Mox

The 24-105 spends a LOT of time on my camera. The shooting I do is quite different from yours, but it's my main walkaround when I don't want to carry the whole kit. I do wish it were just a bit wider, since I'm also using a cropped sensor. If you're a big bokeh fan (I am), I have to say, it's not spectacular, so I tend to use something else when I'm going for dreamy-creamy. It's a very sharp lens, though, with good contrast, and a really solid build. I find myself happy for the extra reach frequently.

I tossed my first one off the side of a cliff in WV, and had the option to pick up something different with the insurance money. I bought another 24-105 - I like it that much. No regrets.

canon400d

Mox wrote:

The 24-105 spends a LOT of time on my camera. The shooting I do is quite different from yours, but it's my main walkaround when I don't want to carry the whole kit. I do wish it were just a bit wider, since I'm also using a cropped sensor. If you're a big bokeh fan (I am), I have to say, it's not spectacular, so I tend to use something else when I'm going for dreamy-creamy. It's a very sharp lens, though, with good contrast, and a really solid build. I find myself happy for the extra reach frequently.

I tossed my first one off the side of a cliff in WV, and had the option to pick up something different with the insurance money. I bought another 24-105 - I like it that much. No regrets.

Thanks Mox for your views which I truly appreciate.
Regards
Bob

canon400d

Nikolai wrote:

The questsions are:
1) what do you shoot?
2) what other glass do you have/plan to have?
3) how long you are gonna stay with a non FF body?

Hi Nikolai
I mainly shoot auto-car venues which are usually held in fields, forests etc. I can get pretty close and on occasions I have had to use my 17-55 but I must admit on occasions too close for comfort. I thought the 24-105 would keep me at a safe distance.
I have quite a lot of lenses as you will see and I must try and get rid of some as I never use them.
I haven't considered a FF body and I must admit I am very keen on the new 7D which I believe is a non FF.
Regards
Bob

colourbox

I own both, which I use in this way:
24-105 - Used for outdoors, tele, and spring/summer when f/4 is not a problem and I want more reach. I agree that this lens performs spectacularly well when fed lots of light; I try not to operate it at its lower limits.
17-55 - Used indoors where more speed and more wide is needed, and outdoors in fall/winter for the f/2.8 since outdoor ambient light is lower, especially late in the day.

I love the constant aperture on both. My older zooms got slower as you zoomed in.

canon400d

colourbox wrote:

I own both, which I use in this way:
24-105 - Used for outdoors, tele, and spring/summer when f/4 is not a problem and I want more reach. I agree that this lens performs spectacularly well when fed lots of light; I try not to operate it at its lower limits.
17-55 - Used indoors where more speed and more wide is needed, and outdoors in fall/winter for the f/2.8 since outdoor ambient light is lower, especially late in the day.

I love the constant aperture on both. My older zooms got slower as you zoomed in.

Thanks colourbox that is really reassuring what you say. Can anyone please tell me what size of UV filter and hood I will need for it?
Regards
Bob

ivar

canon400d wrote:

Thanks colourbox that is really reassuring what you say. Can anyone please tell me what size of UV filter and hood I will need for it?
Regards
Bob

The 24-105 comes with a hood. The filter diameter needed for that lens is 77mm.

[Deleted User]

canon400d wrote:

Can anyone please tell me what size of UV filter and hood I will need for it?

77mm just like so many of the other good lenses

canon400d

Jim K wrote:

77mm just like so many of the other good lenses

Thanks Ivar and Jim. It is the same size filter as 17-55. I am getting it from B & H but they are out of stock at the moment.
Regards
Bob