24-105 on an XTi?

wolfejm

This is probably a same-old same-old question. My apologies if it's a rerun. I have an XTi with a EF-S 17-85. I'm looking for a lens with better IQ, a little faster aperture, and have around 1k or so to spend on it.

I'm looking to use the upgrade as my primary lens, and have pretty much landed on the 24-105. The 17-55 is interesting, but it's pricey when I figure I'll probably go full frame at some point, and I hate to give up the extra reach. However, I've ben FUD'd into worrying about the wide end being a problem on the 24-105.

What kind of experience do folks have with the 24-105 on a crop body? Should I be happy with my current lens and spend the money on something else? Aren't toys fun! :barb

Thanks!

ziggy53

wolfejm wrote:

This is probably a same-old same-old question. My apologies if it's a rerun. I have an XTi with a EF-S 17-85. I'm looking for a lens with better IQ, a little faster aperture, and have around 1k or so to spend on it.

I'm looking to use the upgrade as my primary lens, and have pretty much landed on the 24-105. The 17-55 is interesting, but it's pricey when I figure I'll probably go full frame at some point, and I hate to give up the extra reach. However, I've ben FUD'd into worrying about the wide end being a problem on the 24-105.

What kind of experience do folks have with the 24-105 on a crop body? Should I be happy with my current lens and spend the money on something else? Aren't toys fun!

Thanks!

Review your own work to see how important the wide end is for your style and shooting experience. You might find that you don't use the 17-24mm range that much. (Not me, I use that range a considerable amount of the time.)

One of the local pros is using the EF 24-105mm, f4L on both crop (Canon 30D) and full frame (5D). She is very happy with the lens on both systems. She is using it for school and event photography, but she got out of wedding work. Her images are proving the lens to be a wise purchase for her. (It's not her only lens, of course, but it has become a favorite.)

If you keep EF-S 17-85mm, f4-f5.6 just for the wide stuff, I think you might find a workable solution.

I suggest that later you could sell the EF-S lens and get the EF-S 10-22mm, f3.5-f4.5, which opens a whole new horizon of opportunities.

If you do go full-frame, you probably would be fine keeping the 24-105mm, reserving the EF-S lens for the XTi, if you keep it. If you sell the XTi, you could sell the EF-S lens at the same time.

colourbox

wolfejm wrote:

I have an XTi with a EF-S 17-85. I'm looking for a lens with better IQ, a little faster aperture, and have around 1k or so to spend on it...However, I've ben FUD'd into worrying about the wide end being a problem on the 24-105....What kind of experience do folks have with the 24-105 on a crop body?

I am like you. I started out with the 17-85 on my XT, along with the 50mm 1.8. After a while I realized I wanted more reach, more low-light speed, and better quality.

My two main lenses are now the 17-55 f2.8 and the 24-105L. The 17-55 is my "indoor small room low light" lens, and the 24-105 is the "outdoor with longer tele" lens.

What I noticed going from the 17-85 to the 24-105:
- I did notice the difference between 17 to 24 at the wide end. I compose something and realize the 24 isn't going to be as wide as I was used to. In many cases I can just step back more. You get a little less of the ultrawide "look," the perspective. I will pull out the 17-55 if I need that. However, 24mm is like 38mm on a "full frame," so it's still wider than normal.
- The 24-105 feels like it means business, compared to the 17-85. However, it is also much larger and makes the XT feel less well balanced. The camera hangs off the lens, not the other way around.
- I love the constant aperture. Mostly because I hated how the 17-85 was f5.6 at the long end, really useless in low light.

I love the 24-105 and won't go back to the 17-85, but you should definitely keep a 17 or shorter lens of some kind around if you like wide angle.

kdog

ziggy53 wrote:

I suggest that later you could sell the EF-S lens and get the EF-S 10-22mm, f3.5-f4.5, which opens a whole new horizon of opportunities.

Definitely.

The 10-22 gives you a whole new way of looking at things. For me, it's a must-have for the 1.6 crop bodies. I think it would make a stunning compliment to the 24-105.

Cheers,
-joel

BenA2

Go for it
I'm a huge fan of the 24-105 on the XTi. Yeah I can see how some people think it seems big for the body. I just don't care. It helps me take great pictures. I personally did not miss the wide end going from the 17-85 to the 24-105. But, I did exactly as Ziggy suggested. I went through my photos and found I spent 90% of my time between 30-85mm. So, the lens just suites my style of phtography.

I should say that I also have the 10-22, which is an excellent lens. But, I find I use it primarily for "documentary" photography (like home improvements). I'm not skilled at using it for landcapes and people shots.

You will be very pleased with the increase in image quality with the 24-105. It's very real.

claudermilk

I have a slightly different combination than that being discussed, but close enough. My 20D (same 1.6 crop as the Rebels) does just fine with my 24-70 as a walkaround. I rarely find it not wide enough, most times is when I cannot foot zoom back that little extra bit. In that case, my Tokina 12-24 comes into the picture; as with the 10-22 it's a great complementary lens to the mid-range zoom.

I also recommend following ziggy's advice and review your own shooting habits to see if the lens is a good fit. If it looks to be, ignore all those people posting "it's not wide enough on a crop"--they might find that, but it doesn't automatically apply to everyone.

colourbox

A good exercise to try is to walk around one day with your 17-85 but mark where 24mm is and don't go wider than that. If you don't feel inconvenienced, then 24mm is sufficiently wide for you.

kini62

I use one on my 30D and have yet to want wider. Faster sure, who doesn't? But as a general purpose lens I think it's great.

I really like the extra reach over something like the 17-55 or 24-70. Of course I use my 70-200/2.8 in the house , so I like to get in close:D


Actually I would like to have something like the Sigma 50-150 (if it weren't so iffy of a lens) or the Tokina 50-135 which doesn't seem that hot either

Gene

wolfejm

Thanks!
I looked through my pictures and did find a number of sub-24mm images, but it was by far not a significant amount (how I would have loved to be able to do some aggregate search on exif data).

At this point, I think I'm inclined to go with the 24-105 with an option to buy the Tokina 12-24 . I like the purported build quality of the Tokina and the fact that they share the same filter size.

It helps to hear folks aren't universally constrained by the 24 end on crop bodies, and that the quality improvement is significant.

Awesome comments as usual.

Thanks!

jonnypb

I've never been greatly fond of the 17-85 as it seems to be kit lens optics with IS. Not just my view but loads of people say this on various forums such as POTN, dpreview etc. The sigma 17-70 is optically better

I think you'd find a big improvement if you got the 24-105L in terms of IQ but I do think you'd lose out on the wider end. I would also consider the 17-55 2.8 IS as that has to be one of the best non L zoom lenses and it's quite quick as well for indoor shooting

I've just got the Canon 10-22 and it's a great lens but the tokina 12-24 also seems to do well and it's well built as well

at the end of the day it depends on your budget and if you're going to sell your 17-85 or not

claudermilk

wolfejm wrote:

I looked through my pictures and did find a number of sub-24mm images, but it was by far not a significant amount (how I would have loved to be able to do some aggregate search on exif data).

At this point, I think I'm inclined to go with the 24-105 with an option to buy the Tokina 12-24 . I like the purported build quality of the Tokina and the fact that they share the same filter size.

It helps to hear folks aren't universally constrained by the 24 end on crop bodies, and that the quality improvement is significant.

Awesome comments as usual.

Thanks!

ExposurePlot You asked for it, you got it!

A friendly warning, the 10-22 vs 12-24 debate can get nearly as heated as N vs C, RAW vs JPEG, Coke vs Pepsi. :uhoh Run a search to pull up recent debates between these two.

colourbox

jonnypb wrote:

I would also consider the 17-55 2.8 IS as that has to be one of the best non L zoom lenses and it's quite quick as well for indoor shooting

The 17-55 is awesome for image quality, though it's the same price as the 24-105 because it's fast and wide. I will say one thing about the 17-55 that echoes many reports:
MAJOR
DUST
SUCKER

It's true what they say, the 17-55 zoom mechanism is a vacuum cleaner. I'm starting to get concerned about how much will build up inside the front element group. Haven't seen that with any other lens I own. It's agonizing, because I have no regrets spending the money based on the picture quality, it's the dust that gives me pause about the purchase.......

edstar

I got the Canon 24-105 about a 2 months ago and love it. It is now my main lens. But I find myself using the canon 10-20 a lot more than before when my main lens was a Sigma 18-200. As previously mentioned, this will depend on the type of shooting yo do.

Eddie
http://esphotography.smugmug.com

ivar

edstar wrote:

I got the Canon 24-105 about a 2 months ago and love it. It is now my main lens. But I find myself using the canon 10-20 a lot more than before when my main lens was a Sigma 18-200. As previously mentioned, this will depend on the type of shooting yo do.

Eddie
http://esphotography.smugmug.com

Hi Eddie, welcome to Dgrin


I shoot with a 24-105 on a 30d (same crop factor give or take). Nearly all shots on my site are taken with that combination. I love it very much, more than the 17-55 that I've shot occasionally with. I would think that 95% of the shots on my site are shot with that combination. I do miss the wider angle every now and then, so I would suggest a wider angle lens to complement it.

kdog

ivar wrote:

I shoot with a 24-105 on a 30d (same crop factor give or take). Nearly all shots on my site are taken with that combination. I love it very much, more than the 17-55 that I've shot occasionally with.

Really? How come, Ivar? Because of the extra reach? I've heard only nothing but rave reviews on the 17-55. My problem with the 17-55 is that I'm not sure I want to spend that kind of money on another EF-S lens. It's reputed to be sharper than the 24-105, and it's of course faster. Please say more about this.

ivar

kdog wrote:

Really? How come, Ivar? Because of the extra reach? I've heard only nothing but rave reviews on the 17-55. My problem with the 17-55 is that I'm not sure I want to spend that kind of money on another EF-S lens. It's reputed to be sharper than the 24-105, and it's of course faster. Please say more about this.

Don't get me wrong, the 17-55 is good, but for me, the 24-105 is better. The extra reach is definitely a plus for me, as I don't have a longer lens. I seem to use the 24-80 part most. If I had a full-frame body, the lens would be on it for 99% of the time I think.

Both AF and IQ seemed to be a bit better on the 24-105. I'm not much of a pixel-peeper; I have no test/comparison shots, it's more of a feeling.

The build-quality definitely feels better on the 24-105.

The good thing about the 17-55 is the 2.8. To be honest, I've not really missed it yet. So far I've been happy with upping the ISO to 1600 or even 3200 occasionally. A little more grain, but I personally have no problem with it.

I'm no prophotog, and I have no problem with the f4, or changing lenses every now and then. I think it depends on what you are shooting. I can see that if you are shooting dim-lit weddings a lot, the 17-55 would be more useful.

wesleyt

I have both the 17-55 and the 24-105 for my 30D. In brief, the 17-55 is my indoor lens, where a wider and faster lens is beneficial, and the 24-105 is my outdoor lens, where there's usually more light and the longer reach is benficial.

wolfejm

Reporting Back...
Hi All,

I asked for advice a few months back, and wanted to report back on how it all turned out. I ended buying the 24-105 & the 12-24. To start with, I love the feel of both lenses, but wow, both added quite a bit of heft. It took me a few shoots to get comfortable with the size.

In the end, I feel very comfortable with the gear, really like the extra reach and extra stop, and am happy to have hoods for everything. I also like the ownership satisfaction of knowing the L glass will last me far longer than any technology purchase ever has. I have not noticed that the wide end on the 24 has been a problem, though once or twice it would have been nice to have a bit wider range. The extra reach makes up for it for sure. I've also learned that while the 12-24 has been helpful a few times, I clearly don't know how to shoot wide effectively, so it doesn't go on my camera a whole lot. It will be more for future learning I think.

If anyone else were considering a similar move, I would only offer one bit of after thought. Clearly, as a hobbyist, I didn't come anywhere near the limits of my 17-85. I had fun money to spend, but even if I hadn't, it would not have really affected the images I'm currently capable of producing. I love this new gear, but I could have learned a lot with the lens I had.

Thanks again to everyone who chimed in!

justplainJay

I have had the 24-105L IS for about a year and a half and it is on my camera about 80% of the time. I loved my first L lens, the 17-40L, which may be another option for you so you can get the 10-22mm or a 70-200 with the extra money. I liked the 17mm wide effect look or laying the camera on the floor inches from my dog's face but was constantly crossing the 50mm boundary (or wanting to) to shoot across the room. That's why I made the upgrade and of course the IS factor. If only the 24-105 came as a 2.8! I use it a lot for event work and the occassional up close court sports trading speed for ISO noise....until I get more lenses!

Let me put it another way. This is my work horse lens. When I go to an event, a party, driving in my car this is the lens for the quick grab in the average focal use range. I use the low and the high mm's for the specialty stuff and sure enough it is a little too wide or too long for minimum shooting distance and I have to switch lenses again...hoping I don't get stuff on the sensor.

Agreeing with the all the other posters- go with the range you will use. And don't let that "I better think about that full frame camera in the future" talk slow you down. That's why there is eBay! . But until you get the money to drop on a $2100 5D (you'll be then complaining about the 3fps or that you better hold off because they are going to upgrade the DIGIC processor in the new 6D?) or that you'll have to go up to $4500 or more for any other less than 1.6x sensor.... that'll be a year or more from now. Can you tell we've all been there?!

I upgraded my 30D to a 40D...which I love but in a semi-perfect world I would ALSO HAVE a 5D with a 16-35L 2.8 and swinging my 40D with the 70-200.

Back to reality; my advice is get the 24-105 and get that better paying first / or second job to help pay for your habit and that second full frame camera. :-) Once you put on a solid, well built L lens that old rebel lens will be like the old pair of sneakers when you buy a new pair....left in the bag and not used much.

jsedlak

I LOVE my 24-105L on my XTi!

Sample shots at my gallery in my signature.