24-105mm IS USM or 17-55mm IS USM Lens

rickp

Hey guys,
I'm looking to add to my lens bag and I'm looking at the Canon 24-105mm IS USM L series lens. Now the catch is I already have the 17-55mm lens and I use it as my walking around lens.

The reason I'm thinking about the addition is I feel like I'm misssing out on the extra reach the 105 lens has and making it my walk around lens, also I like the fact that it's an L series lens. I had the 28-135mm lens that came with my 50D but it's not a very good lens so I got rid of it. Now I really miss the range it covered. My only negative thought on the 24-105 is the 4 f/ stop.

So what do you guys think?

Thanks
R.

Scott_Quier

The only time the f/4 would be a problem on a "walking around lens" is if you happened to walk into a dark building. For just about anything outside, the f/4 isn't a problem.

What might be a problem is the 24mm - on a cropper this isn't very wide.

But, your 17-55 would handle that - if you were carrying it with you at the time.

And, if you were carrying the 17-55, then the f/4 wouldn't be an issue for inside shots either - just mount the 17-55 and go at it. And, wider lenses tend to be more handy when shooting inside anyway.

Ric Grupe

I'd be looking at the 70-200 if I were you.

f/4, f 2.8, IS, no IS.....all are good.:D

rickp

thanks guys.

I have the 70-200 f 2.8 IS USM. I also always carry the 17-55mm. Sometimes I just feel that I lack a bit of reach with the 17-55mm lens.

When I got my my Canon 50D it came with a 28-135mm lens, but it was a crappy lens. WHat I did like about it though was the range for a general walk around lens. That's the gap I'm trying to fill. Does that make sense?

R.

colourbox

I know it sounds a little strange but I own both and I don't regret it.

For me, the 24-105 is my "outdoor" lens. Outside, I need more reach, and there's plenty of light. The 17-55 is my "indoor" lens. Inside, I need wider angle for small rooms and a bigger/faster aperture for the lower light levels, and the 17-55 gives me both.

Yeah, there are times when I'll be both inside and outside and I don't want to carry two lenses. In that case I'll just pick the one I think will be more useful and be glad I have the choice. Yes, owning both is expensive, which explains why I haven't bought (and luckily haven't really needed) a 70-200 yet.

rickp

thank you guys for taking the time to reply. I'm 90% sure I'll pick up a 105mm and make it my main walkaround lens and my 55mm my wide angle landscape lens. I know my shooting and after this i really think I'll benefit from the addition.

Again thanks

R.

chrisjohnson

Had a similar dilemma and ended up going for the 70-300 IS USM. It is not L series, but is decent.

I would not want to miss the wide end of the EFS 17-55.

Depending where I am walking I'll fit one or the other and maybe carry the other in the bag just in case.

Saved some money too.

Money does not seem to be a problem so IF I was you I would probably buy the 24-105 and decide which to keep after a few months. Both lenses have good resale value.