this is very upsetting: canon 17-55 f/2.8 vs. 24-105 f/4 L

rosselliot

I'm interesting in hearing y'all's arguments.

I really want a lens that's image stabilized for indoor shoots, traveling where one might be in dim-lit museums or cathedrals or something of such a nature. if you think I will be okay without IS please address that in your comments! however, I've been looking at these two lenses VERY closely. I've looked through EVERY search result for both lenses and cannot find eveactly what I'm looking, and of course, as with all things, there are the good and the bad things. so here's the question.

one thing is for sure - they're both EXPENSIVE - $1000 (and more). so I'm going to do some lens shuffling and get one of these, based on your response.

the-digital-picture.com says that if he had only ONE lens, that the 24-105 would be it. but it's not very wide?! only 24?! on a 1.6X crop factor? I know the image quality will be SUPERB (I'm guessing), but will 24 hurt me in travels and weddings or what not? (btw, I don't really shoot weddings, it's just an example of low light indoor photography and stuff)

howver, I've heard GREAT GREAT things about the 17-55 except that it's not an L which kinda PISSES me off, because it's so dang expensive that THEY COULDN'T HAVE WEATHER SEALED IT AND INCLUDED A LENS HOOD?! Canon obviously didn't think that through.

so out of those two, which one?

- RE

PS - how many of you would say bypass both and just get the 17-40 L f/4? with no IS or low f/stop?

EDIT: btw, I take a lot of portraits, outdoors and indoors, I'm going to start doing on location, like in people's houses and in the yard, in the church, wherever they want pictures. but mostly I take them outdoors.

DavidTO

I can't really speak to the lenses, but I do have a question.

Why all the drama?

HeldDown

rosselliot wrote:

I'm interesting in hearing y'all's arguments.


howver, I've heard GREAT GREAT things about the 17-55 except that it's not an L which kinda PISSES me off, because it's so dang expensive that THEY COULDN'T HAVE WEATHER SEALED IT AND INCLUDED A LENS HOOD?! Canon obviously didn't think that through.

so out of those two, which one?

- RE

PS - how many of you would say bypass both and just get the 17-40 L f/4? with no IS or low f/stop?

.

I'm going to have to interrupt here and point out that the 17-55 CANNOT be an L lens, as it is obviously an EF-S lens - only EF lenses can be designated "L." As well, if you want a hood and weathersealing, it would cost even more than it does now, which seems like it would be an issue.

I use a 17-40L and am very happy with it.

gus

rosselliot wrote:

, traveling where one might be in dim-lit museums or cathedrals or something of such a nature. if you think I will be okay without IS please address that in your comments!

What will your light meter be reading in these places ?

Honestly ...we have no idea of what light you will see in your travels & how steady your hands are.

windoze

this might not be a very convinving arguement but Ive owned both those lenses and the 17-55 on my 20D is much sharper than the other. The 17-55 might not be "L" lens quality built, but it sure offers "L" lens quality images.
for indoor lowlight -> f/2.8 with IS very hard to beat!!
IMHO, the 17-55 is a sweet lens! Many who argue against it, CAN'T even use it ! Some say its a dust collector. All I can tell you is that Im very happy with that lens and would never sell it. AND IVE SOLD nearly every lens ive bought ( at least twice )


win

rosselliot

gus wrote:

What will your light meter be reading in these places ?

Honestly ...we have no idea of what light you will see in your travels & how steady your hands are.

I don't really know what my light meter will be reading in these situations....you're an experienced photographer, you can imagine what a museum would be like in terms of this?
last time I had many experiences with museums was when I went to D.C. and I had a point and shoot. so I'm not familiar with my DSLR in museum settings.

- RE

rosselliot

windoze wrote:

this might not be a very convinving arguement but Ive owned both those lenses and the 17-55 on my 20D is much sharper than the other. The 17-55 might not be "L" lens quality built, but it sure offers "L" lens quality images.
for indoor lowlight -> f/2.8 with IS very hard to beat!!
IMHO, the 17-55 is a sweet lens!

win

thank you!, windoze, definitely the most helpful response so far! *tally on one side*



so you've owned BOTH of these lenses? and you'd pick the 17-55 - NO questions? did you have a dust problem? did it feel very secure and all?

- RE

rosselliot

DavidTO wrote:

I can't really speak to the lenses, but I do have a question.

Why all the drama?

see first paragraph:

done research, still can't make a decision - want help.

windoze

rosselliot wrote:

thank you!, windoze, definitely the most helpful response so far! *tally on one side*



so you've owned BOTH of these lenses? and you'd pick the 17-55 - NO questions? did you have a dust problem? did it feel very secure and all?

- RE

my wife says im a pig! If there was anybody who was going to get dust inside their lens it would be me! so far no dust! Its a nice fit on the 20D - well balanced IMHO.

oink oink,

windoze

badtz

over the summer I did some indoor cathedral type shooting with my sigma 18-50, ISO 800 handheld at about a 50th of a second or so...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/22/166798777_381a6e39bc.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/61/166798143_92f943aee3.jpg

I havent had a chance to play with the 17-55 yet (nor any IS for that matter) but Id imagine it would work well if you get the advertised 2stops or so. I think most of the shooting I did was around 18-30mm, so nice as the 24-105 would have been to have it would have stayed in the bag that day.

colourbox

DavidTO wrote:

Why all the drama?

Hey, I can relate to that guy. I'm stuck making the same decision. I want a zoom that is capable of being a fast lens for indoor wide angle handheld environmental portraits with less depth of field (i.e. big aperture) on my small sensor XT. That's led me to the same two lenses and I am still deciding because I want to own as few lenses as possible. I would like to buy just one but have a feeling I might have to save up long term for both. The 24-105 for outdoor/indoor situations for more tele, and the 17-55 2.8 for indoor-only situations because I know from using my 17-85 IS (which I will sell someday) that f/4+IS is often not quite enough in low light, because I always end up putting on the 50mm 1.8 even though it isn't nearly wide enough and has no IS. I have also been toying with the idea of buying a fast wide prime instead, which would be much cheaper, but I have a feeling I'll not want to change lenses that much.

jsedlak

I think they are both awesome lenses... and for me it would come down to if you are shooting more fast moving objects or objects that are slow or still. I really love the 24-105L and tied with a 430EX it really is nice, even in low-light situations. I have been able to shoot quite slow shutter speeds with little to no blur.

thebigsky

DavidTO wrote:

I can't really speak to the lenses, but I do have a question.

Why all the drama?

Good question, there are a lot of things in life to get upset about, trying to decide which Canon Lens to buy isn't one of them, maybe perplexed was the word you were looking for?

Scott_Quier

I have the 17-55 and love it. I've never had the other to compare against it. This is lens is one of three that I regularly use for portraits. Here are a couple of recent shots that might help you decided. Not much done to these aside from a little curves and a very small amount of USM.

1.


2.

Red Bull

From what I've read the 17-55 IS pretty much is an L, but it can't be designated as an L because it's an EF-S lens. the photos I've seen from it are tack sharp and just as good as most L lenses.

If you really want weather sealing, and can go with a 2.8 with no IS with a shorter focal length, then I would suggest a 16-35 2.8L. I have it's little brother, then17-40 f/4L and I love it. It has very nice reach on my 20D and pretty much lives on my camera.

Tommyboy

Ross,

Based on your criteria, it seems the 17-55 is the clear choice. It's wide, it's fast, it's image stabilized. The IS buys you at least three stops for hand held shots.

I'm sure the 24-105L is a great lens, but on a crop camera, it's wierd, unwieldy focal length. The 17-55 seems like a great keep-on-the-camera, walk around lens.

Insofar as dust is concerned, I've owned, or had on account, more than one-hundred prime and zoom lenses since 1979, and I've never had a dust issue.

wxwax

Tommyboy wrote:

Ross,

Based on your criteria, it seems the 17-55 is the clear choice. It's wide, it's fast, it's image stabilized. The IS buys you at least three stops for hand held shots.

I'm sure the 24-105L is a great lens, but on a crop camera, it's wierd, unwieldy focal length. The 17-55 seems like a great keep-on-the-camera, walk around lens.

Insofar as dust is concerned, I've owned, or had on account, more than one-hundred prime and zoom lenses since 1979, and I've never had a dust issue.

Makes sense to me.

Not sure what the concern over dust is all about.

Matthew Saville

I love camera geek drama!

Just visit my blog, http://www.xanga.com/CameraTalk if you want camera geek drama...


To add to the drama, but hopefully without starting a fight:

I think that Canon's stubbornness with not putting the "L" label on an EF-S lens is a very poor decision. Canon needs to come to terms with the fact that there are actually pros out there who just don't feel the need to completely embrace the 35mm chip movement and throw away their APS-C gear. Larger, heavier, and more expensive lenses and bodies just don't appeal to some.

Sure, the price of that to-die-for 35mm sensor is going to come down eventually, (and yes, I'll buy one for landscape shooting when that day comes) ...but there are un-deniable advantages to shooting with the APS-C format. Sigma is embracing this more than Canon and Nikon, and they are going to make a killing off their 30, 18-50, and 50-150 EX DC lenses. If Nikon and Canon don't pick up the pace and start offering a fuller line of pro level DX / EF-S gear, the pros who need an APS-C setup at least SOME of the time are going to look elsewhere. Personally I'm in love with my Sigma 50-150, and I eagerly await the Tokina 16-50, while also eyeing the apparently even better Olympus system.

Obviously megapixels aren't what are important to me, and I'm not alone, otherwise Olympus, Fuji, Sigma etc. wouldn't still be releasing cropped DSLR's. Canon hasn't even released a 1.6x crop camera with things like weather sealing etc. yet, and so the D200 is just scooping up that extra market with ease.

Now just to be fair, I'll rag on Nikon for a second- Where is the FF option? At least Canon offers both options, and the 20D/30D is no slouch, even if it's not fully pro. Nikon on the other hand offers both pro, amateur and beginner APS-C DSLRs, but nothing FF. I guess you could say Canon did what they had to do, they released the 5D to bring 35mm sensors to the masses a little more, just scooping up the market. I don't claim to know whether the D200 is making more money for Nikon than the 5D is making for Canon, but each company did what they had to do to convince more people that what THEY think is best is actually the best. Now it's time for both parties to cave in and start making cameras that they may not be so enthusiastic about making, but the masses are dying to have- Canon, please make a full blown pro APS-C DSLR with weather sealing and a stupid MLU button, and Nikon, please make a couple FF bodies. (tongue in cheek: And Nikon, you better show Canon how to do it right!)

Okay, now off the soap box with me-


I have indeed shot with the 24-150 f/4 L, and it's a fantastic piece of glass.

But I'd have to say, rosselliot, that your fear is indeed true: 24mm isn't wide enough on an APS-C, and f/4 isn't "wide" enough either.

HOWEVER- That REALLY depends on what you're shooting. If for example you're going to be using flash pretty much all the time, and if you have, for example the 10-22 EF-S to take you "super-wide", you may prefer the 24-105 over the 17-55... The extra reach is awesome for doing headshots with fantastic bokeh, whereas with the 17-55 you'll end up needing something like a 70-200 for longer things... (Or even better, the likes of the Sigma 50-150 or Tokina 50-135)

So those are your options. Now the last question is, do you plan on carrying just one body, or two. If two, then you can get either the 17-55 IS plus a Sigma 150-150, or the 10-22 plus the 24-105. The former setup being advised for if you shoot w/o flash a lot, the latter being great for flash photography. (Use a Gary Fong Lightsphere to spread light evenly in all directions with that 10-22, BTW)

If you're only carrying one body, then I'd advise more towards the 17-55, because the necessity to switch lenses will be a lot less.

If of course you plan on adding an FF system to your bag somewhere down the road, you're should decide now whether or not you want to maintain your APS-C system when you do so. Because if you plan on completely dumping the APS-C system, (which I wouldn't advise) ...you're going to want to spend as little on EF-S equipment as possible, or at least keep it in pristine condition so you can resell it later.

I hope that helps you decide!
-Matt-

LiquidAir

rosselliot wrote:

howver, I've heard GREAT GREAT things about the 17-55 except that it's not an L which kinda PISSES me off, because it's so dang expensive that THEY COULDN'T HAVE WEATHER SEALED IT AND INCLUDED A LENS HOOD?! Canon obviously didn't think that through.

Canon doesn't make any weather sealed bodies that take EF-S lenses. The day Canon releases body with 1-series build in the APS-C format you will start to see sealed EF-S lenses and probably some new classification similar to L for the EF-S mount. Since red and green are already taken, I am guessing those lenses will have a yellow line. As things are today, what is the point in spending extra money for sealed lenses on a leaky body?

ian408

How's about we ask a slightly different question. Do you plan to keep the
30d and not upgrade to a full frame sensor or do you forsee the 30d and
it's successors as your camera platform of choice?

If the later, then by all means, get the EF-S. Otherwise, consider choosing
something else because the EF-S may not work w/your future purchase.

I would probably also be thinking about the glass I buy today and whether
it's useful tomorrow.

DavidTO

ian408 wrote:

I would probably also be thinking about the glass I buy today and whether
it's useful tomorrow.

Not a bad thought, but glass does hold its value so well, maybe not the primary concern...

Matthew Saville

LiquidAir wrote:

Canon doesn't make any weather sealed bodies that take EF-S lenses. The day Canon releases body with 1-series build in the APS-C format you will start to see sealed EF-S lenses and probably some new classification similar to L for the EF-S mount. Since red and green are already taken, I am guessing those lenses will have a yellow line. As things are today, what is the point in spending extra money for sealed lenses on a leaky body?

Put me down for blue. (making it "RGB" if you will)

I've posted this pic here before, but:



The lens is the lesser known 17-35 L, and the body is the 20D WITH the notoriously flakey battery grip. The camera and lens and BG all survived, even though he hardly wiped them off and left quite a bit of snow to just melt on the camera... So, I'm sure that in some cases, whatever you can get in the way of build quality, you should take. And bodies like the 10D-30D, and the 5D, have been claimed to put up with quite a bit even though they're not officially sealed...

-Matt-

rosselliot

Matthew Saville wrote:

I love camera geek drama!

Just visit my blog, http://www.xanga.com/CameraTalk if you want camera geek drama...


To add to the drama, but hopefully without starting a fight:

I think that Canon's stubbornness with not putting the "L" label on an EF-S lens is a very poor decision. Canon needs to come to terms with the fact that there are actually pros out there who just don't feel the need to completely embrace the 35mm chip movement and throw away their APS-C gear. Larger, heavier, and more expensive lenses and bodies just don't appeal to some.

Sure, the price of that to-die-for 35mm sensor is going to come down eventually, (and yes, I'll buy one for landscape shooting when that day comes) ...but there are un-deniable advantages to shooting with the APS-C format. Sigma is embracing this more than Canon and Nikon, and they are going to make a killing off their 30, 18-50, and 50-150 EX DC lenses. If Nikon and Canon don't pick up the pace and start offering a fuller line of pro level DX / EF-S gear, the pros who need an APS-C setup at least SOME of the time are going to look elsewhere. Personally I'm in love with my Sigma 50-150, and I eagerly await the Tokina 16-50, while also eyeing the apparently even better Olympus system.

Obviously megapixels aren't what are important to me, and I'm not alone, otherwise Olympus, Fuji, Sigma etc. wouldn't still be releasing cropped DSLR's. Canon hasn't even released a 1.6x crop camera with things like weather sealing etc. yet, and so the D200 is just scooping up that extra market with ease.

Now just to be fair, I'll rag on Nikon for a second- Where is the FF option? At least Canon offers both options, and the 20D/30D is no slouch, even if it's not fully pro. Nikon on the other hand offers both pro, amateur and beginner APS-C DSLRs, but nothing FF. I guess you could say Canon did what they had to do, they released the 5D to bring 35mm sensors to the masses a little more, just scooping up the market. I don't claim to know whether the D200 is making more money for Nikon than the 5D is making for Canon, but each company did what they had to do to convince more people that what THEY think is best is actually the best. Now it's time for both parties to cave in and start making cameras that they may not be so enthusiastic about making, but the masses are dying to have- Canon, please make a full blown pro APS-C DSLR with weather sealing and a stupid MLU button, and Nikon, please make a couple FF bodies. (tongue in cheek: And Nikon, you better show Canon how to do it right!)

Okay, now off the soap box with me-


I have indeed shot with the 24-150 f/4 L, and it's a fantastic piece of glass.

But I'd have to say, rosselliot, that your fear is indeed true: 24mm isn't wide enough on an APS-C, and f/4 isn't "wide" enough either.

HOWEVER- That REALLY depends on what you're shooting. If for example you're going to be using flash pretty much all the time, and if you have, for example the 10-22 EF-S to take you "super-wide", you may prefer the 24-105 over the 17-55... The extra reach is awesome for doing headshots with fantastic bokeh, whereas with the 17-55 you'll end up needing something like a 70-200 for longer things... (Or even better, the likes of the Sigma 50-150 or Tokina 50-135)

So those are your options. Now the last question is, do you plan on carrying just one body, or two. If two, then you can get either the 17-55 IS plus a Sigma 150-150, or the 10-22 plus the 24-105. The former setup being advised for if you shoot w/o flash a lot, the latter being great for flash photography. (Use a Gary Fong Lightsphere to spread light evenly in all directions with that 10-22, BTW)

If you're only carrying one body, then I'd advise more towards the 17-55, because the necessity to switch lenses will be a lot less.

If of course you plan on adding an FF system to your bag somewhere down the road, you're should decide now whether or not you want to maintain your APS-C system when you do so. Because if you plan on completely dumping the APS-C system, (which I wouldn't advise) ...you're going to want to spend as little on EF-S equipment as possible, or at least keep it in pristine condition so you can resell it later.

I hope that helps you decide!
-Matt-

thank you so much, Matt! I really appreciate all of that. and I appreciate everything from everyone else too!!!!

I do think I'll be sticking with the 30D for a while, but I would like to eventually switch to full frame in the future, when I get my photography business to grow. so I guess it depends, should I buy the lens that works for my camera, or put up with it being too short in hopes I'll get a FF later...hard decision.

sorry I can't give y'all a definite answer!!!!! I guess it's impossible for y'all to be sure if I'm not even...

- RE

colourbox

wxwax wrote:

Not sure what the concern over dust is all about.

When reading the 17-55 reviews over at FredMiranda.com, there are a number of complaints about dust getting sucked into the zoom, causing some reviewers to use terms like "vacuum cleaner." That's probably where the concern comes from. Reviewers love the lens, though.

sebmour

Not always easy to make decisions...but here is a little tips that I do since i buy all local. I buy the lens expensive lens that I am debating. Then, I have 14 days to bring it back so I see if it works for me or not. If not I go for the other one. Another 14 days to try then I decide.

I personnally have the 17-40mm F4L and I have to say that I love it. 16-35 would have been nice but price keep me away. But F/4 is pretty slow with hand holding in bad or little lighting. I see the biggest difference when I go shooting with my camera club. One has 70-200 F4 and I have 70-200 F2.8. He raises is ISO i just keep on shooting!

17-55 would be great lens too. IS, 2.8 aperture and amazing sharpness.
Anyhow good luck and keep on shooting!

El Kiwi

Tommyboy wrote:

Based on your criteria, it seems the 17-55 is the clear choice. It's wide, it's fast, it's image stabilized. The IS buys you at least three stops for hand held shots.

Right. I was choosing between the same two lenses, went for the 17-55 and I love it. Nice and wide, fast, and IS, what's not to like? I don't think the IS actually gets you 3 stops, but I've taken plenty wide open at 1/20 and they (mostly) come up great. I'd say in practice 2 stops is about what you get reliably. My only complaint would be that it's a little short, but I'm much more interested in low-light performance - f/4 would be much more of a problem for me than the length. If I had a 5D things might be different. the-digital-picture said that if he had one lens it would be the 24-105, but I suspect that's on a full-frame body.

Actually, the one thing not to like is that obviously I can't take it with me if I get to go full frame this year, and there's really no full-frame equivalent lens. I don't know what I'm going to do...

BTW agreed about the drama - of all the things to get worked up about in my life, lens choice is way down the list :-)

Red Bull

Matthew Saville wrote:

Put me down for blue. (making it "RGB" if you will)

I've posted this pic here before, but:



The lens is the lesser known 17-35 L, and the body is the 20D WITH the notoriously flakey battery grip. The camera and lens and BG all survived, even though he hardly wiped them off and left quite a bit of snow to just melt on the camera... So, I'm sure that in some cases, whatever you can get in the way of build quality, you should take. And bodies like the 10D-30D, and the 5D, have been claimed to put up with quite a bit even though they're not officially sealed...

-Matt-

How in the world did he manage to do that?! Did he drop it? or did he leave it out while it was snowing?

Justiceiro

OK, let me step in and ask the stupid question here: If money and rnge are an issue, then why not get the 17-85 IS? I know its only an f4, but the range is very good, and with the stabilization you can hand hold in some pretty rough conditions (the first IS lens I owned is the 70-300 with a smilar aperture range, and it isn't a problem).

Unless you are shooting concerts in a dark hall, the combination of a noise cleaner, the IS, and elatively decent light should give you good pics. And it saves you a lot of cash.

I am evolving towards the view that, for a (relatively) economical canon shooter, the thigs to have are the 20D/30D, the 17-85 IS, and the 70-300 IS. Plus maybe the 50mm f1.8 prime. It's just too damn cheap not to get.

Then again, I have never shot with the 17-55 IS. I currently use the "kit" 17-55 and its nothing to write home about, although my best selling picture was shot with it- its really not to bad. A good tripod beats the best IS, if you can use it.

Is the difference between these two lenses that extreme?

ivar

I think the bigger issue here is do you need the range at the low end? or at the high end? Since you say you are going to shoot churches and museas (static situations mainly) I don't think the 2.8 will the that much of an advantage over the 4. They are both fine lenses, allthough my personal preference goes out to the 24-105.

Just to demonstrate to the the pixelpeepers that you can take fine shots with the 24-105 in the dark areas, here is a shot with a 1 second exposure time (straight from the camera).


and a crop of the same photo:


Not bad for a 1 second expore I think.

I do have to say that IS is not 'magic'. It takes some time and a lot of practice to learn how to use it properly and the best results, for me at least it did. Once I figured out how to position myself and the camera, it is pretty nice actually.

I do remember thinking I liked the bokeh (spelling?) of the 24-105 better, although I don't have photos to prove it to myself. I haven't used the 17-55 that much.

colourbox

Justiceiro wrote:

OK, let me step in and ask the stupid question here: If money and rnge are an issue, then why not get the 17-85 IS?

I've already got that one. It's not a bad lens, but like I said, in low light I always find myself tearing it off and putting on the 50mm 1.8 because of the 1.8 (always after trying the 17-85's IS first), and that's what got me looking. I am hoping that having 2.8 on the 17-55 will be a measurable improvement over f4 but as you said I could be wrong about that. I suppose I should see if the local store has the 17-55 on their rental list before I drop the cash, just to make sure it's worth it.

The 17-85 was the lens I bought with my XT and I have come to the conclusion that it's only good for moderate situations. It isn't fast enough, it doesn't reach far enough, hard to make the background go out of focus due to the aperture, and I keep replacing it with a $75 lens.

The other problem with the 17-85 is that you lose that f4 the second you zoom in, where the 24-105 can hold f4 all the way to 105mm. Hmmm...now I need to look up if the 17-55 is constant 2.8 or not...anybody know its max aperture at 55mm?

ivar

colourbox wrote:

anybody know its max aperture at 55mm?

2.8