24-105mm versus 17-55mm as single solution for 30D?

I'm getting my first SLR camera, a Canon D30. Yesterday was debating between a

new 17-85mm IS lens and a used 28-70mm f2.8L, and after everyone's helpful

comments have decided to step up and go for either the 24-105mm f/4L IS lens or

the 17-55mm f/2.8 EF-S. Both are around the same price. The 24-70mm I ruled

out because of weight and no Image Stabilization.

 

I plan to use this as an all-purpose lens, i.e. for the near term I have no

plans to carry around a bag with a bunch of other lenses, will just keep this

on the camera and try to use it for everything. I will primarily take pictures

of family gatherings and events, vacation scenery, etc. As you can guess I'm

not a pro photographer but want image quality good enough to blow up and frame

as well as just having great pictures.

 

The debate in my mind is:

- which is the better focal range for a single all-purpose lens?

- how much does f/2.8 versus f/4 matter? Probably helps taking indoor pictures

without flash?

- is there a notable differnence in image quality between the two lenses? the

24-105mm is called an "L", but the 17-55mm seems to be viewed as equivalent

quality.

 

I searched the forums on this site and others and see the following complaints

about the 17-55mm:

- It's an investment in 1.6x format. Not too big a concern for me, I plan to

keep this camera for years and use a single lens with it so am not too worried

about that.

- It collects dust. This sounds like a problem. Anyone know whether that's

been corrected?

- would be an "L" but for the plastic body, which for my purposes is actually

a positive as it limits weight.

 

Any advice would be appreciated. Have seen many threads comparing each of

these two lenses with the 24-70mm, or as part of an arsenal of lenses for a pro

photographer, but not many comparing them with each other as a single solution.

Best choice Canon 24/70 f2.8L cant go wrong a grate allround lens I think, A bit pricey but worth it.

Not sure about the 17-55mm, but I got the 24-105mm instead of the 28-70mm when I was looking for a general walkabout lens. I figured that the addition of IS compensated for the maximum aperture differential... that said, the 28-70mm would be a better portait lens, but I use the 50mm 1.4 for that, so I was more keen on the extra 'reach' of the 24-105mm...

 

It's a pretty personal thing, though!

"which is the better focal range for a single all-purpose lens?"

 

It depends on whether you value the wide angle end more or the tele end. I use both a 17-40 f4l and a 24-70 f2.8L on an XT. With the 1.6x crop, 24mm wasn't wide enough for me.

 

"how much does f/2.8 versus f/4 matter?"

 

Again it depends, but f2.8 and f4 practically doesn't make much of a difference for me. More often then not, when I want to shoot at low ambient or want to limit DOF, it's at f2 or faster with a prime.

 

"...see the following complaints about the 17-55mm: - It's an investment in 1.6x format. Not too big a concern for me"

 

This is a big deal for me since I still use 35mm film as well. As far as quality goes, I don't think Canon as labled any EFS lens L. This is probably more of a marketing decision than anything else.

Dan, this is your first SLR. You're talking about dropping $1200 on glass but you don't

understand what you're buying or why.

 

My suggestion: get the 18-55 kit lens, or 17-85 IS if you're feeling spendy. Either of these

lenses will meet your needs. For family gatherings you might want to add a 430 EX flash. Use

the kit for a few months. You'll know after that time where it falls short of your needs or

expectations and you'll know what would be best to add, if anything.

-B

For a cropped sensor camera like the 30D a "normal" lens is about 28mm. So a 24-XXX is for me just not acceptable no matter what its other good qualities may be. As for you ? (and photo.net, one ? is not enough)

<p>

I have the 17-55. As you've noted, it sometimes ingests dust and the build quality is questionable. The zoom ring on mine felt uneven at first, but it has improved a lot with use (you can read about that <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ILCg">here</a>).

</p>

<p>

But none of these things affects image quality, which is excellent. For that reason, this is one of my favourite lenses. It has the latest generation of IS and that, combined with its relatively wide (f/2.8) aperture, makes it also superb in low light. Having f/2.8 available also means you can blur backgrounds quite nicely.

</p>

<p>

The big question is whether 17-55mm is the range you want. Do you have any feel for that, based on other cameras you have used? Could you borrow a camera and try to find out? This is a question that only you can answer. Of these two lenses, I would choose the 17-55 because the 17-24 range is more important for me than the 55-105 range. Others would choose differently. Neither approach is wrong.

</p>

<p>

However, before I bought the 17-55, I used the 17-85 IS lens for a couple of years. It's a good lens, especially if you use it stopped down a little. If 55mm is not quite long enough for you, you might want to consider this lens again. It's also a bit lighter in weight than the 17-55. Why not save money on the lens by buying the 17-85, and put the amount saved into a nice flash (I presume some of your family gatherings will be indoors)? Indoors, having the right flash technique will have a much greater effect on the quality of your photos than your choice between the four lenses you've been considering. And outdoors, you can usually use a smaller aperture to minimize the differences in image quality. If I were you, my choice would be the 17-85mm IS lens and a flash. I'd also buy a lens hood, to minimize the risk of flare when shooting outdoors (the same goes for the 17-55 -- the L lenses come with a lens hood anyway).

</p>

An option you could look at would be the EF-S 10-22 and the EF 24-105 f4L.

 

Not ideal for some shoots as it gives you a split around the normal length, but this means only putting cash into one EF-S lens instead of two; assuming you wanted some kind of ultra wide capability you would need to add the EF-S 10-22 to the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS anyway.

Gerry: Some people seem to have no dust issues with the 18-55 f2.8 IS whilst others seem to have big problems.

 

One suggestion is those with no dust issue have a protective filter fitted - are you a filter or no filter man?

<p>You say D30, which is a long-obsolete DSLR that's not compatible with the 17-55 (or the 17-85). Did you mean 30D?</p>

 

<p>For me, the 24-105 cannot be a single solution for a 1.6-crop body; it doesn't go wide enough. So I'd go with the 17-55. I've considered getting this lens, actually, to replace my current 17-40/4L USM; not that there's anything wrong with the 17-40 (it's a fine lens) but the extra stop, extra reach, and IS would be nice.</p>

My fav "wide" walkaround focal lengths on 35mm film was 35mm. So my EF 35 2.0 and

35-105 3.5-4.5 zoom were always on my EOS 5. With a cropped sensor camera, I find the

24-105 4L IS USM ideal as it aproximates a 35-170 zoom in FF. Many here have said that's

not wide enough but each person is different. On FF I found 24mm so wide as to be nearly

useless, so you really need to figure out your own needs.

 

"It collects dust. This sounds like a problem. Anyone know whether that's been corrected?

- would be an "L" but for the plastic body, which for my purposes is actually a positive as

it limits weight."

 

As for dust, I think this trait has been amped up by anal internet whiners and is not a

serious

problem. Zooms move glass elements to focus and zoom. These elements fill most of the

barrel diameter and therefore must displace a air when moved. The air vents through the

rear of the lens as well as barrel junctions. Of course air has dust in it and all lenses will

accumulate some dust over time, even "sealed" L lenses. The "sealing" makes the lens

weather resistant not water or dust proof. Besides, shine a penlight down any new lens

and you will see "factory" dust.

 

As far as sucking in dust, nested barrel zooms seem to be the worse. More barrel

junctions mean more places to suck in dust. Optics with internal focus and zoom have the

least problems. The 28-135 IS has 2 nested barrels and is a virtural vaccum compared to

my 24-105 4L.

 

If you're really worried about dust, get a "sealed" zoom with internal focus and zoom, e.g.,

EF 17-40 4L USM, and never take it off.

Lester: yes, I noticed that opinions are somewhat divided on the 17-55 and dust. I generally prefer not to use a protective filter, and have not been using one on the 17-55. I had not considered that it might be sucking in dust through the very front of the lens. Perhaps I'll give it a try. The dust thing is not a big deal for me at the moment, though.

I have the 17-55mm and it is a wonderfull lens. IS combined with f2,8 can't be beat in low light. And the imagequality is better than the primes, I used to have.

 

24-105mm f4 is to slow and and not wide enough for indoor pictures of family gatherings without flash. Of course you could get a flash, but bright light in peoples eyes are obtrusive and make people feel uneasy.

I guess that answer really depends upon what you regard as "all-purpose," but that won't

keep me from jumping in with a few thought to consider. (I own the 24-105 and use it a

lot; I have no direct experience with the 17-55.)

 

The 24-105 is the lens I have on my crop sensor Canon DSLR the most. There is no

question in my mind that it is a fine lens. Like all lenses it does, in some ways, fall short of

imaginary divine perfection... but what lens doesn't? And the shortcomings are very minor,

indeed.

 

That said, I have my doubts about it as an "all purpose" single-lens solution on a crop

sensor camera. The main issue - and this is where _your_ notion of "all purpose" will be

the determining factor - is that 24mm is just not very wide on a crop sensor camera. It is

equivalent to about 38mm on a full-frame camera, and in the old days that was

considered somewhere between a "wide normal" and "slightly wide" format.

 

I would feel very limited if 24mm was the widest I had on my crop sensor camera. I solve

this by using more than one lens; I usually pair the 24-105 with the 17-40 which together

cover my most used range quite nicely.

 

That said, the 17-55 sort of presents you with the opposite problem: while probably

sufficient at the wide end, 55mm is equivalent to only about 88mm at the long end. This

gets you to the "portrait lens" range but not into the real telephoto range at all.

 

Speaking for myself and my style of shooting, if I had to go out with just one or the other

of these lenses on a crop sensor body, I would go for the 17-55. I'd rather have to crop

than have to forego getting all of an image into the frame. But I'd feel pretty limited.

 

Is the desire to work with only one lens primarily based on cost concerns or on the desire

to keep life simple? If cost is the issue, you might consider getting either of these lenses

plus a prime that would extend your range. For example, you might get the 17-55 plus a

85mm, 100mm or 135mm prime. Alternatively, you could augment the 24-105 with a

20mm lens. (Though I'd still want wider.) An additional benefit of this approach is that the

prime lenses typically give you wider maximum apertures than you'll get from any zoom,

at a lower cost and lighter weight.

 

If convenience is the issue, in the end you'll have to sacrifice something to achieve it. Get

the 17-55 and lose the long end. Get the 24-105 and lose the wide end. (Get the 17-85

and cover a better range but sacrifice some image quality.)

 

Good luck.

"I will primarily take pictures of family gatherings and events, vacation scenery, etc."

 

I also do a lot of such photography, with both a 5D and a Rebel XT (which is a crop camera like the 30D). On the Rebel, I leave my 17-40L lens on almost 90% of the time. With the 5D, the 24-105L stays on 90% of the time. As many have said, having only 24mm on the wide end will be very limiting for what you intend to take using the 30D. In your shoes, I would consider among the 17-40L (a full-frame L lens), the 17-85IS, and the 17-55IS.

Stick with the 17-85. What's tomorrow's question...

Hi Dan,

 

if this is your first SLR, I would suggest sticking with the 17-85mm IS as the single lens solution. You won't know what you like to shoot and what lens you need next until you shoot around a while. With your 30D, you may find the 24-105 not wide enough, and the 17-55 not long enough. So just get the 17-85mm and don't worry about the next lens until you see your interest and need grows. Best wishes.

Now that you have upped the ante, I'd highly recommend the Canon EF 17-40/4 L and Canon EF 70-200/4 L. You will not miss anything between 41 and 69mm. For the money you cannot beat these 2 zoom lenses for image quality. In the lenses you are looking at IS is about a $400 to $600 option. IS is for use where you have no subject movement and only lowlight levels, and where you do not want to use flash. IS only solves a very small portion of most peoples' photographic opportunities, and does not change non-L glass into L glass.

 

 

There is a commercial on TV in my country that is false advertising. It champions the use of IS in an extremely dark dance club to stop the motion of fast dance movements. Sure you can take the photo at 1/20s with no camera motion but the dancers will all be sweeping blurs of reflected light. If these are the sort of distorted images that you wish to create on a regular basis or wish to do a lot of indoor events under ambient light then IS is definitely worth it. Good luck!

To me even 17 or 18 is not wide enough for a cropped Canon, so I got 24-105 first (if you really need, get a ~$70 17-55 kit lens to temporally cover the wider angles), am in the market for a 10-22 (waiting for Dell's stakable coupons) and then will get the 100-400.

I also go with the recommendation of 17-85/IS

 

Also. . buy a 430EX flash immediately.

 

Logic:

1) Half the POINT of having a SLR is to be able to change lenses. From your questions. . .you don't fully know what you need, so buy a lens that will last for YEARS. . .and figure out what lens #2 shall be. You will be missing out if you only have one lens.

 

2) The 17-55/IS may have good optics. . .but it is built the same way as the $600 17-85/IS. And the $400 28-135/IS. I have nothing against inexpensive build quality. . .as long as it is cheap. If it is build like a $400 lens. . .don't pay $1100 for it!

 

3) The 17-55/IS is too short for your ONLY lens. I take 90% of my shots in this range. . . but you won't pry the 85/1.8 out of my kit, and I often carry a 70-200/4L for long stuff.

 

4) The 24-105/4L-IS is too long for your ONLY lens. Granted, I shot for over a year with nothing wider than a 24/2.8 prime. . . but you really want something a bit wider.

 

5) If pressed, I would opt for the 24-105/4L-IS over the 17-55/IS for numerous reasons: "L" build beats "prosumer" build. I often need longer rather than shorter. F2.8 is nice. . .but 2.8 is still not a "portrait" lens. If you get serious about portraits. . . neither lens qualifies. (IS takes care of low ambient light stuff usually)

Dan, I'm another very satisfied user of the 10~22 plus 24~105 combination. It provides good to excellent quality over a very wide zoom range with reasonable speed. Although the 10~22 is not built to the standards of current L-series lenses (and has the zoom and focus rings the "wrong" way round!), because zooming does not extend the lens body this matters far less that with extending lenses, and that's all the more a difference with double-extending lenses. But I agree that the 24~105 is too long on its own, certainly for me, and that the changeover point is not ideal. I moved to this combination from the 17~40, which I still have but use relatively little - it's a fine lens but simply does not cover the territory, and also I find IS on the 24~105 to be a real benefit.

The 17-55/2.8 is a better one-lens-solution because it's wider and faster. Nevertheless I fail to understand the crave for an "all around lens". Why take one of the DSLR's main advantages over P&S and turn it into a disadvantage? Therefore I second the recommendation for a 10-22/3.5-4.5 + 24-105/4 set.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

Another option is the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5. This is equivalent to a 27-112mm on a full frame camera. I have had it for several months now to use on my 20D, and I have been very pleased with it. B&H has it for $389 right now. It would be nice to have a constant 2.8 aperture and it's not quite up to par with Canon primes or L series, but it is hard to go wrong for the price. I have used the 18-55 kit lens some and the Sigma definitely beats it in terms of image quality and build quality. Still it's not bad advice for you to get the kit lens for a $100 bucks or so and use it until you get a feel for the camera and your shooting needs before plopping down some serious cash for a lens. You would not regret being able to make an informed decision.

 

Another third party lens to consider is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, which runs $450 at B&H. I understand if you want to stick with Canon lenses; that was my sentement as well (I have a smattering of Canon primes and one L zoom), but I do not regret getting my Sigma 17-70 and have enjoyed it tremendously.

My vote would be for the 24-105, for the build quality and the FF compatibility. It's a great general purpose lens. Only you will be able to tell -- after you've gained some experience with whatever lens you choose -- if you need additional glass or not.

 

My zooms are the 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200. I just returned from a photo vacation, and I found that I kept the 24-105 on my 20D most of the time.

 

I only switched to the wide or long zoom if I absolutely couldn't get the shot I wanted with the 24-105. I used the 70-200 so seldom that I could have gotten away with leaving it at home. But since it was a road trip, it was no big deal to take it along (as well as my two primes, which never left the vehicle).

 

I look forward to when I eventually buy my FF dSLR (5D or successor), so I can pack both bodies, the FF with the 24-105 mounted, and the 20D with the 70-200 attached. Since 24mm on FF is wider than 17mm on 1.6x, I doubt I'll have much use for the 17-40 any longer.

I use the 28-300IS USM when I travel on my 5D. It covers pretty much what I need. yes, it an expensive solution but it works for me with 1 lens and no flash. I also have the 24-105. its a nice lens too.