24-105 or 24-70 travel lens?

collegephotoguy · June 28, 2008

Hi,

So in July I'm going to be traveling around Europe and want to take pictures of everything from indoor museums to outdoor street photography. I'll be walking a lot and only want to take two lenses since I don't want to carry a lot. I have the Canon 30d and the 70-200 f/2.8L lens so far since everyone I've spoken to has highly recommended that lens for everything. Now, after speaking with many people, I'm trying to decide whether to get the 24-70 f/2.8L lens or the 24-105 f/4L lens. I heard great things about both, but I can only buy one and can only carry one. They are about the same price so money isn't an issue with either lens. Does anyone have a recommendation, keeping in mind this will be the lens pretty much used for everything indoors and outdoors and possibly even sports like soccer matches perhaps! Thanks.

Moogle Pepper · June 28, 2008

In terms of range, I would say get the 24-70. It is an awesome piece of glass, I have one myself. Since you already have the 70-200 f 2.8, you covered the long range that the 24-105 covers that the 24-70 doesn't. The 24-70 is also f/2.8, meaning easier time to shoot indoors than the 24-105 f/4. I'd say the 24-70.

In terms of weight though, the 24-105 is much lighter than the 24-70. So you might want to take weight into consideration when you travel.

ziggy53 · June 28, 2008

My #1 recommendation for primary lens on a Canon crop 1.6x camera is the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM.

This lens just does so much correctly, I am finding it to be my most used and most treasured lens of all time.

The reasonably fast constant aperture of f2.8 coupled with fast and accurate focus and then IS as well, it's just about the perfect combination zoom for my style of shooting.

17mm is around twice normal field-of-view, so true wide angle, and the 55mm is a moderate telephoto. This lens is very similar in use on a crop camera to the old 28-80mm standard zoom used on full-frame 35mm cameras.

If you're serious about taking the Canon EF 70-200mm, f/2.8L USM, the 17-55mm would complement nicely.

mwgrice · June 28, 2008

Moogle Pepper wrote:

In terms of range, I would say get the 24-70. It is an awesome piece of glass, I have one myself. Since you already have the 70-200 f 2.8, you covered the long range that the 24-105 covers that the 24-70 doesn't. The 24-70 is also f/2.8, meaning easier time to shoot indoors than the 24-105 f/4. I'd say the 24-70.

In terms of weight though, the 24-105 is much lighter than the 24-70. So you might want to take weight into consideration when you travel.

Don't forget that the 24-105 has IS, which also means an easier time shooting indoors. I suspect it's pretty even. However, an IS len does use more battery power than a non-IS lens.

For what it's worth, I took the 24-70 to Europe last fall and was pretty happy with it. Although I took almost my entire kit, upwards of 80% of my shots were with the 24-70.

Photoskipper · June 29, 2008

I have been using the 24-105 F4 IS for more than 18 months and travelled couple of photo trips and some busy/photo mix trips in Europe and Asia.

So far, I am very happy with it particularly the IS. It allows me to push the shuttle speed down to 1/15. Combining with the low noise up to ISO 800 in 5D, it seems no limit to me. Though the 24-70 F2.8 is one stop faster than the 25 -105, the IS gives 2 -3 stop advantage and extra 35 mm covers the portrait and some mid-range tele. Most important is that the 24-105 reduce the need to change lens in the dusty field.

It may be a bit long if you use the 1.6X crop factor body. But good enough for walk-about use.

Scott_Quier · June 29, 2008

My second choice, I think, would be the 24-105 f/4L. You loose a stop of light in the aperture, but you more than make up for it with the IS, assuming you are shooting relatively static subjects

and I think that may be the case where you are shooting indoors.

My first choice would be the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Like Ziggy says, this lens does so many things right that it's the lens I think of first when I have a problem to solve. It always the solution - but it fills the bill 90% of the time. It has the IS AND the faster aperture ( f/2.8 ). The only possible draw-back, obviously it the focal length range. But, the 17mm will hold you in good stead for shooting indoors - wide is good!

rutt · June 29, 2008

If you ALSO have a 50mm f/1.4 than you have indoors/available light situations covered. Everyone should have that lens. It's relatively inexpensive, small, and light. Add this to the 24-105 and you have almost everything you need except a long tele.

I think the 24-70 and the 70-200 were designed to complement each other as a nearly complete PJ kit. For a long time I traveled with this kit and loved it. But these days, I love having that 50.

Shima · June 29, 2008

Scott_Quier wrote:

My second choice, I think, would be the 24-105 f/4L. You loose a stop of light in the aperture, but you more than make up for it with the IS, assuming you are shooting relatively static subjects and I think that may be the case where you are shooting indoors.

My first choice would be the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Like Ziggy says, this lens does so many things right that it's the lens I think of first when I have a problem to solve. It always the solution - but it fills the bill 90% of the time. It has the IS AND the faster aperture ( f/2.8 ). The only possible draw-back, obviously it the focal length range. But, the 17mm will hold you in good stead for shooting indoors - wide is good!

I agree. I used the 24-105 last time I went to Japan, but have since upgraded to the 17-55 and would gladly use in the future for another trip instead

tjstrider · June 29, 2008

28-70
Because of my style of shooting for PJ stuff at School. I went with the 28-70 (the predicessor to the 24-70) Mostly b/c i will likely go full frame a year or two.

The 17-55 though for travel related things would probably serve me better. 24-70 28-70 is great for me b/c i would have missed the 55-70 but usually 55 or 70 would be fine and the middle MM aren't that important i suppose. Depends on your style of shooting.

Vacations have a tendency to want Wide b/c you can get in front of people and still get a good photo.

Also the 17-55 is lighter (fact check) than the 24-70 and if you are already carrying the beast 70-200 2.8 then that might be helpful

Scott_Quier · June 29, 2008

Shima wrote:

I agree. I used the 24-105 last time I went to Japan, but have since upgraded to the 17-55 and would gladly use in the future for another trip instead

I find this kinda humorous - upgrading from an L to a "consumer" grade lens.

But, I do think I have to agree with that assessment.

Manfr3d · June 29, 2008

I think weight is the most important thing to consider for travel
phtography. If you stay in one place where you can leave part of
your gear this might not be such a big problem. But if you intend to
walk aground for hours in cities and museums you need to be
in good pysical shape and be working out to not get hard
muscles from holding your 70-200/2.8 or a 1kg 24-70mm/2.8
lens all the time. The less you carry the more fun and more
pictures you will have in the long run.

My recommendation for europe would be something like:

Fullframe: 17-40/4.0 L, 24-105/4.0 L IS, 70-200/4.0 L IS
Crop: 10-20/22, 17-55 IS, 70-200 IS

Also pack a 430 flash and a fast prime (35mm or 50mm)
Changeing lenses all the time is frustrateing, so you might
even decide that you can ommit a telezoom.

It is also worth to checkout the light 28-75mm/2.8 from
Tamron or a 100mm lens as a telephoto.

Just my 2 cents of course

Enjoy your trip!

colourbox · June 29, 2008

On trips I take a 17-55 f2.8 as the indoor/wide/low light lens and the 24-105 f4L as my outdoor/tele/daylight lens. If I decide that I am taking only one lens on a trip, it's the 17-55. But if I were in your shoes, that is to say if I already owned a 70-200 f2.8, then I would consider the 24-105 to be too much overlap and too slow and would go for the faster 24-70 or faster and wider 17-55 to complement the 70-200.

A factor in this is how much you like shooting wide angle. On a 30D, 24mm is not that wide. That and the low light capability are why I bought the 17-55 f2.8 as my indoor low light lens. Indoors can often mean small rooms, which means there is often not enough room to step back and a wider wide end is useful.

collegephotoguy · June 29, 2008

Thank you all for your advice. But I still have a question...I thought L-series lenses were the best so why would I want a 17-55 consumer grade lens instead of the 24-70 or 24-105? Sure the IS and the fast 2.8 f-stop is great, but how is the image quality compared to the other two? I've used the 24-105 and 24-70 but I've never even seen the 17-55 let alone the results that come from it. I know that the images coming from the L lenses including my 70-200 lens are incredible because of the UD glass though. And unfortunately I can only get one of the lenses since I'm only looking to spend around $1000 and each lens is about that price.

ziggy53 · June 29, 2008

collegephotoguy wrote:

Thank you all for your advice. But I still have a question...I thought L-series lenses were the best so why would I want a 17-55 consumer grade lens instead of the 24-70 or 24-105? Sure the IS and the fast 2.8 f-stop is great, but how is the image quality compared to the other two? I've used the 24-105 and 24-70 but I've never even seen the 17-55 let alone the results that come from it. I know that the images coming from the L lenses including my 70-200 lens are incredible because of the UD glass though. And unfortunately I can only get one of the lenses since I'm only looking to spend around $1000 and each lens is about that price.

I have 3 Canon "L" series lenses and I assure you that the only things not "L" about the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM are build quality and the fact that it will not fit the Canon 1D/1Ds/5D bodies. Every other aspect of the lens (sharpness, focus speed, focus accuracy, contrast, IS effectiveness, etc.) puts that lens in the same class of lens as Canon's best.

Buy equipment based on your needs, not some silly naming convention.

Tee Why · June 30, 2008

While most L grade lenses have great optics, there are many non L lenses by Canon and others that have similar or at times better image quality, especially taking into the price.

For traveling around, I would focus on a lens with a more "walking around" range which for a cropped sensor is somewhere around 16mm-70mm or so.

The 24-70 and 24-105mm lenses are very nice but I'd consider them not wide enough for landscape and cityscapes.

I'd go with something along the lines of a Canon 17-55mm IS as well. Or maybe a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and another lens since the tamron is lighter and cheaper than the Canon.

Good luck and have fun on your trip.

Photoskipper · June 30, 2008

collegephotoguy wrote:

Thank you all for your advice. But I still have a question...I thought L-series lenses were the best so why would I want a 17-55 consumer grade lens instead of the 24-70 or 24-105? Sure the IS and the fast 2.8 f-stop is great, but how is the image quality compared to the other two? I've used the 24-105 and 24-70 but I've never even seen the 17-55 let alone the results that come from it. I know that the images coming from the L lenses including my 70-200 lens are incredible because of the UD glass though. And unfortunately I can only get one of the lenses since I'm only looking to spend around $1000 and each lens is about that price.

That is a very good question.
The L means "luxary" and also means that user has to pay extra for something that is more than their need.
In marketing, we always say that the customers usually more happy to pay double the price for just marginal 5-10% extra satisfaction, it means luxary again.

For today's technology, consumer level lens are pretty reasonable. It is not easy to differentiate the photo taken by either the "consumer lens" or the big L. The only major catch is that the new consumer lenses are designed for the smaller sensor and cannot go for the "pro-camera".

The L also means heavier and bigger. The weight usually come from the metal barrel which provide better feel and stability. Metal also allow the lens to hold bigger and more glasses.

My friends also asked me similar question :"What is the difference between the DSLR and the prosumer camera?" The later has similar pixel count but only half the price and comes with 10 -18X zoom, aperture may be as big as F2.8.

evoryware · June 30, 2008

It better shoot "L" quality for $1000!
I've travel with two bodies and 24-70 and 70-200 and a flash. It's not light but I really have no concern with weight.

There are no EF-S lenses with the "L" designation. EF-S lenses are designed to cover a smaller image circle so they can be "smaller, lighter and more affordable" than if they were for full frame cameras. If they had to make the 17-55 for EF I'm sure it would be a lot more expensive.

I'll resubmit these so you can see some difference.
I took these three from the same spot with the 10-22, 17-55 and 24-70 at their widest on the 40D.
1.

2.

3.

That's quite a bit of angle difference between 17 and 24mm.

puzzledpaul · June 30, 2008

'L' lenses - irrelevant re the lenses under discussion here, but the only 'L' designated macro lens in Canon's (5 lens) lineup is the 180mm.

The fact that the other 4 ... 50 / 60 / 100mm + mpe65 don't have it doesn't mean they're poor performers

pp

claudermilk · June 30, 2008

Paul, you are indeed puzzled. That post sounds like it belongs in another thread. Forum glitch?

I have to disagree with Photoskipper's last post. The L capabilites may not be in excess of the user's needs--they may be exactly what is required; that was an over generalization. L's are also not necessarily big & heavy, 70-200/4L anyone? I expect the weight in the heavier lenses is more from the glass than anything else. OK, enough nitpicking.

To the question, the OP mentioned having used both the 24-70 and 24-105. So, which one worked better for your shooting style? They are both excellent lenses and you can't go far wrong with either. I use the 24-70 alongside my 70-200/2.8L and they do make for a fantastic pairing.

Regarding Manfr3d's weight comments, if you have proper support for the gear, the weight isn't too bad. I just dragged those two lenses along with my gripped/L-bracketed 20D around Sea World all day long yesterday and felt as fresh leaving as I did arriving. I used my ThinkTank Steroid Speed belt & Pixel Racing harness with the LC75 Pop-Down & LC35. I never did attach the Op/Tech straps & just used the currently-mounted lens' LC as a holster. Worked pretty well all day & supported the weight mainly on my hips with some load spread to the shoulders. The stuff really does work as advertised.

collegephotoguy · June 30, 2008

This is all great advice and again I thank you for sharing your knowledge and experiences. But, I seem to be getting conflicting advice about lenses from everyone. Some say to get the 24-70 since it complements my 70-200 and has superior image quality to the 24-105 and 17-55 while others say the images from the three lenses are very similar. People also say I will want to have the fast 2.8 f-stop and it will come in handy especially in museums and at night and to stop action. However, people also say the 24-105 lens is great because of the IS but they hate the f/4 since it's sometimes too slow. Weight isn't really an issue for me since I'm young and can carry a lot. But the extra focal range is definitely nice too even though it overlaps my 70-200. And lastly, people recommended the 17-55 f/2.8 IS consumer lens because they say that 24mm is too long and having f/2.8 and IS is certainly a bonus. Unfortunately, though, you lose range and possibly image quality even though I haven't seen pictures taken from the lens to support the loss of image quality. It would be nice to have all three but I only can get one for an everyday walk around lens to complement my 70-200, which I don't want to use a lot. Also, I'm sure eventually I will upgrade to a Canon 1D Mark II sometime, so I'm not sure about spending money on the 17-55 lens even though the wide angle is nice. Maybe I'll just use my 18-55 kit lens for the wide angle shots I need even though it's not the best. I didn't realize how difficult it is to choose a lens. I'll probably go to a camera store near me and try all three of them plus some other lenses you all recommended like some of the Tamrons, but I think I'm mostly considering the 24-70, 17-55, and 24-105 - especially the 24-70 and 24-105. I'm just not sure how to balance everything out and plan for the future too. Wow, this gets so confusing!

ziggy53 · June 30, 2008

collegephotoguy wrote:

... I seem to be getting conflicting advice about lenses from everyone. Some say to get the 24-70 since it complements my 70-200 and has superior image quality to the 24-105 and 17-55 while others say the images from the three lenses are very similar. People also say I will want to have the fast 2.8 f-stop and it will come in handy especially in museums and at night and to stop action. However, people also say the 24-105 lens is great because of the IS but they hate the f/4 since it's sometimes too slow. Weight isn't really an issue for me since I'm young and can carry a lot. But the extra focal range is definitely nice too even though it overlaps my 70-200. And lastly, people recommended the 17-55 f/2.8 IS consumer lens because they say that 24mm is too long and having f/2.8 and IS is certainly a bonus. Unfortunately, though, you lose range and possibly image quality even though I haven't seen pictures taken from the lens to support the loss of image quality. It would be nice to have all three but I only can get one for an everyday walk around lens to complement my 70-200, which I don't want to use a lot. Also, I'm sure eventually I will upgrade to a Canon 1D Mark II sometime, so I'm not sure about spending money on the 17-55 lens even though the wide angle is nice. Maybe I'll just use my 18-55 kit lens for the wide angle shots I need even though it's not the best. I didn't realize how difficult it is to choose a lens. I'll probably go to a camera store near me and try all three of them plus some other lenses you all recommended like some of the Tamrons, but I think I'm mostly considering the 24-70, 17-55, and 24-105 - especially the 24-70 and 24-105. I'm just not sure how to balance everything out and plan for the future too. Wow, this gets so confusing!

I'm not sure why you think you are getting conflicting information.

The bottom line is that these are "all" splendid lenses. Since your primary application was, "I'm going to be traveling around Europe and want to take pictures of everything from indoor museums to outdoor street photography." I would rank the usefulness of the three lenses thusly (especially considering the 70-200mm lens you have):

1) Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM
2) Canon EF 24-70mm, f/2.8L USM
3) Canon EF 24-105mm, f/4L IS USM

The latter two lenses just don't have the ability to do as well indoors, the first because it lacks the width and IS of the 17-55mm and the second because it lacks both the width and a full stop of speed.

Ultimately, it is your choice and you cannot go too far wrong with any of these lenses.

Do check out the reviews here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-Lens-Reviews.aspx
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests

For a good selection (over 16,000 images) of sample images from the Canon EF-S 17-55mm:

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_s_17_55_28_is_usm

I just shot an outdoor ceremony almost exclusively with the EF-S 17-55mm just before Father's Day, but I haven't gotten the green light by the organizers to show them publicly yet.

Sharpness, color, contrast, focus accuracy and focus speed were all excellent used with the Canon 40D.

Pindy · June 30, 2008

Gotta agree: 17-55 is THE lens for a 1.6x sensor body. The 24-70 and 24-105 don't really make as much sense until they're on a 5D or a 1D.

There's no other lens (even an L) Canon makes that's IS and f/2.8 at this focal range.

colourbox · June 30, 2008

collegephotoguy wrote:

However, people also say the 24-105 lens is great because of the IS but they hate the f/4 since it's sometimes too slow.

Both the 17-55 and the 24-105 have IS. One reason I went with the 17-55 is that too many times, IS at f4 did not save me because the subject was moving. (IS only helps when I'm the one moving.) To stop that, I need faster shutter speed. To get that, if already maxed on ISO, I need a lower aperture. f2.8 for the win.

One difference you will get with an L lens is durability and weather sealing. While I really love the 17-55 because the images are spectacular, I have to admit that it feels cheap compared to the 24-105. A little disappointing since they have similar prices.

rpcrowe · June 30, 2008

I have BOTH the 24-70mm f/2.8 IS and 24-70mm f/2.8L
BOTH ARE SUPERB LENSES....

I use my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens as my go-to and travel glass. It is the lens I will have on one of my cameras most of the time. IMO, it is the most versatile lens for a 1.6x camera. It's image quality is outstanding and it is a relatively lightweight lens - at least compared to the 24-70L.

I use my 24-70L as my studio lens because it has a 15mm longer end which is nice for head and shoulder portraits; the extra weight of this lens doesn't bother me because I don't have it hanging around my neck all day when I am shooting in my studio; and because the 24mm short end is plenty wide enough because my studio is relatively large. The closer focusing capability of the 24-70L (1:3.5) allows me to use this lens quite often for closeups where I would need to switch to a macro lens if I were shooting with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Additionally I consider that the lack of IS is a non-factor in my studio work since I always shoot with studio strobes.

I purchased the 24-70L before either the 24-105L or the 17-55 IS lenses were introduced by Canon. I love my 24-70L for studio work and since I already own it - I will keep it for that use. However, if I had owned the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens first instead of the other way around; I seriously doubt if I would have purchased the 24-70L.

evoryware · June 30, 2008

I don't know who said you lose image quality with the 17-55 IS.

If B&H had the 17-55 in stock when I went looking, I very well may have it instead of the 24-70 now. That wasn't the case and doesn't matter because the 24-70 is a beautiful thing.
Not all L's are weather sealed.

Photoskipper · July 1, 2008

claudermilk wrote:

Paul, you are indeed puzzled. That post sounds like it belongs in another thread. Forum glitch?

I have to disagree with Photoskipper's last post. The L capabilites may not be in excess of the user's needs--they may be exactly what is required; that was an over generalization. L's are also not necessarily big & heavy, 70-200/4L anyone? I expect the weight in the heavier lenses is more from the glass than anything else. OK, enough nitpicking.

To the question, the OP mentioned having used both the 24-70 and 24-105. So, which one worked better for your shooting style? They are both excellent lenses and you can't go far wrong with either. I use the 24-70 alongside my 70-200/2.8L and they do make for a fantastic pairing.

Regarding Manfr3d's weight comments, if you have proper support for the gear, the weight isn't too bad. I just dragged those two lenses along with my gripped/L-bracketed 20D around Sea World all day long yesterday and felt as fresh leaving as I did arriving. I used my ThinkTank Steroid Speed belt & Pixel Racing harness with the LC75 Pop-Down & LC35. I never did attach the Op/Tech straps & just used the currently-mounted lens' LC as a holster. Worked pretty well all day & supported the weight mainly on my hips with some load spread to the shoulders. The stuff really does work as advertised.

I regard Claudermilk as a perfectionist and expect the best equipment for his work. It is great to have some one appreciate the capacity of the L. In general, many of ordinary photographer. like me, 95% of the time does not find IQ difference between the L and EF lens. I do pay the double price for the extra 5% in case I need it.

For the weight, there are real difference. There is no 70-200 non L lens, I use the EF 80-200 F4.5-5.6 which is only 250 gm while the 70-200 F4L (nonIS) is 705 gms, almost trible. If compare to 1470 gms of 70-200 F2.8 IS, that is almost 6 times the weight.

another example is the 28-105 F4/5.6 which is only 210 gms compare to the 24-105 L F4IS which is 670 gms, again trible the weight.

There are many more example in the Canon website for reference.

nikos · July 1, 2008

3 lens set-up
For some reason, a 2 lens limit on a trip would never cut it for me. After trying various lens set-ups, I've found that this combination pretty much satisfies most of my needs with my 40D:

1. 10-22
2. 24-70 2.8
3. 70-200 2.8 IS

I pack it all in a lowepro sling (incl. 580ex flash) which I can take aboard a plane as a carry-on.

Regards,
Nikos

Elaine · July 1, 2008

I'll be another voice for the 17-55. I nearly got the 24-105 when I got my 40D in December. I decided to go with the 17-55 because of the wider angle and 2.8. I am SOOO glad I did. This lens just makes me happy every time I use it. It's sharp (and I'm picky about that). It's fast. It's accurate. It's nicely wide on my 40D. The IS works great. It produces excellent images.

I also have the 70-200 f/4 L IS. Some say the build quality of the 17-55 is poor. I don't notice that at all, in part because it is certainly not light. It's not a complete tank or anything, but I would expect poor build quality to feel light and flimsy, and it doesn't, at least to me.

There are quite a few photogs around here very happy with their 17-55 and many images have been shared here from that lens. I don't think image quality would keep you from choosing it.

Of course, the 24-70 and 24-105 are known to be fantastic as well, so you can't really go wrong. I just know I would have been frustrated with the 24mm (on a crop body) and/or f/4, so the 17-55 suited my shooting purposes better, and I've not been disappointed at all.

kini62 · July 1, 2008

collegephotoguy wrote:

Hi,

So in July I'm going to be traveling around Europe and want to take pictures of everything from indoor museums to outdoor street photography. I'll be walking a lot and only want to take two lenses since I don't want to carry a lot. I have the Canon 30d and the 70-200 f/2.8L lens so far since everyone I've spoken to has highly recommended that lens for everything. Now, after speaking with many people, I'm trying to decide whether to get the 24-70 f/2.8L lens or the 24-105 f/4L lens. I heard great things about both, but I can only buy one and can only carry one. They are about the same price so money isn't an issue with either lens. Does anyone have a recommendation, keeping in mind this will be the lens pretty much used for everything indoors and outdoors and possibly even sports like soccer matches perhaps! Thanks.

I've been using the 24-105 for over 18 months- first on my 30d and now my 40d.

I use it for everything. Portraits, sports, indoors, outdoors, landscape, mostly just shots of my kids that include many of the above type shots.

In fact I used it this weekend to shoot some marathon shots. The range is nice more than wide enough for small groups shots, long enough for some nice action. The IS works great. It focuses very fast. It's sharp wide open.

It's just a plain great lens. If you need wider for landscapes you can always stitch a couple of vertical shots together. I did one just for the heck of it and it came out great.

I think it's the best compromise of all 3 of the lenses that have been mentioned.

Maybe because I have seldom need for wider than what 24 goes on a crop body, but the rest of the lens' quality and abilities more than make up for what you lose in the wide end. But that's JMHO.

Gene

Pindy · July 1, 2008

The 17-55 is an L in image quality, just a step down in build, ie, no magnesium body. For policy reasons, I'm sure, Canon has decided not to combine the L and EF-S line.

I owned the 17-55 (w/ my former 30D) and now have Shima's 24-105 on the 5D. I can say both are of comparable image quality and I consider the trade to be a lateral move. Whoever posted the shots of the 10-22, 17-55 and 24-70 on the wide end kind of said it best. For travel, you're going to want to get wider than an effective 38mm. You won't regret the 17-55mm—It's the perfect companion. Everybody who considers the 17-55 goes through the same thing you're going through, namely, that you want to know you're getting value for your thousand bucks, without the "L" cachet. A lot of us are telling you that you will. If I bought a 40D today, as a backup, I would not hesitate to buy another one.

Moogle Pepper · July 1, 2008

If you are sticking with the with a crop body, just get the 17-55 and be done with it.

But if you are going full frame or 1D, get the 24-70.

24-105 or 24-70 travel lens?

Comments