Should I add a 17-55 2.8 or a 24-105 4L to my 10-22?

Hey all,

 

I have a Rebel XTI and the 10-22 Lens and I am contemplating getting another.

My two choices above, the 17-55 2.8 and the 24-105 are pretty close in price,

especially with the hood for the shorter lens added in. I currently have the

older 28-105 non-L.

 

I mainly shoot portraits (kids, family) and nature/landscape, so I really like

the wide angle lens I have for the latter. Someday I'd like to add a tele but

going over 200 isn't a priority now. I have read all of the recent questions on

comparing the two but none really assuming you already have the 10-22 (which

again I want to keep). Because my kids move quick I like the idea of a zoom for

quick compositions although a nice cheap prime could be added if I got the F4 lens.

FF cameras may be in the future but only if they come down in price and probably

not for 3 years or so...

Sounds like you are set on the wide end - I would get the 24-105. that way you are covered from 10mm through 105.

Hey Jonny

 

Well I have the 17-55mm lens and I can tell you that it is great and worth the money ... however, I find myself in the opposite situation as yourself.

 

I have the 17-55 and 70-200mm both 2.8IS as well as a 50mm prime and I find I only use my 17-55mm at the widest range and never from approximately 24mm on. I use my 50mm for portraits indoors and low light situations and of course my 70-200mm for almost everything else.

 

As much as I love the 17-55mm lens I would say go for the 24-105L.

 

I have even contemplated putting my 17-55 on E-bay and getting the 10-22 lens but I often wonder if I'd regret it because it truly is an excellent piece of glass but then again I really find I don't use it as often as I thought I would or at least not at the tele end.

 

So if I were you I'd get the 24-105 as already said you'd be covered from 10-105mm with just a very small gap between 22-24mm lost.

I would get a cheap 50mm F1.8 for fast work and then the 24-104 F4 for the range.

Hey thanks for the responses...I like the idea of a cheap prime if I really need to shoot at 2.8 or below, along with the 24-105

That sounds like the best choice. I would never give up my 50mm prime but I am thinking of selling my 17-55 withing 2 days on E-bay. I may kick my a$$ for it later as I only bought it a month ago but I guess we'll see.

 

But Jonny the 50mm 1.8 and 24-105 along with your 10-22 would be excellent.

Depends how you like to break up the focal lengths. I too have an uwa (Sigma 10-20), and chose to add a standard zoom (Tamron 17-50/2.8). This works well for me because I like to leave the uwa at home every so often (e.g. for lightweight travel) and I make do with 17 mm for landscape. Also, a standard 17-something zoom works well for interior people-shots where space is tight.

 

However, when I'm shooting peope outside with the 17-50, I won't use the wide end and the long end is limiting - 105 mm would be much much better. So in this case the longer lens would be better. Suppose for arguments sake I also had a Tokina 50-135/2.8 - I'd be switching lenses constantly. So 50 mm may be a bad place to break up the focal lengths.

 

So if you do decide on the longer lens, then maybe ask yourself 24-105/4 or 24-70/2.8 - 1 more stop of speed or more reach.

I have had the 24-105L for a long time, and recently broke down and decided to break my self-imposed ban on buying EF_S lenses, and bought both the 17-55 and the 10-22. In the short time I've had them, I find the 17-55 is much more convenient because it lets me switch quickly from wide-angle to telephoto FOV by just zooming. the 24-105/10-22 combo doesn't do that, even though each lens excels in the range it does cover. On the other hand, I always "want more" on each end of the 17-55. I also find the 24-105 does much better at closeups (something that is important to me) than the 17-55.

 

For what it is worth, my copy of the 17-55 had to go to Canon straight out of the shipping box because of a stiff focus ring that clearly wasn't right. I kept it, rather than returning it, because testing showed it was decently sharp. And I am EXTREMELY happy with the image quality on my 17-55 now that it is returned (Canon indicated the zoom ring gears were jammed, straight from the factory--Go figure).

 

So it isn't an easy choice you face. Whichever one you do, you'll be wrong some of the time. I'd get whichever one feels right and be done with it (for me, probably the 24-105 in your situation), and I'd add a fast prime as Dillian suggested.

Thanks again. I'll go for the 24-105. Mike, closeups are important for me too so that sold it. I think the longer reach will be helpful more than the extra speed...

I'll trade ya a 10-22 for a 17-55 2.8. I would give up the last 7 degrees for the speed.

danny I have the 10-22...good luck if you can swing that trade with someone!

Well I do want the 10-22 but I'm not willing to simply trade my 17-55 for it ;) sorry. I just purchased it 3 weeks ago and its really never been used plus I'd end up losing a few hundred on that trade :-). Actually its just been put up on Ebay and if it sells, fine but I won't be truly disappointed if it doesn't as I do love the lens.

What I don't like about the 10-22 and 24-105 combo is that the change point is right where I do most of my shooting. I'd be constantly switching lenses with a 24-105. As it is, the 17-55 covers most of my normal range, and I only have to switch lenses when I either need a very wide lens, or a long one. That's probably only 10-20% of the time.

 

I think I'm pretty normal in this regard too. the 17-55 is the equivalent of 27-88mm, and that covers more range than the usual normal zoom of 28-70 on a full frame camera. The 10-22 and 17-55 combo is about like having a 16-35 and 28-70 combo for full frame. It's pretty much the ideal zoom lens collection. You notice they don't sell many 40-160mm zooms. That's cause nobody wants one.

 

But the bottom line is, what do you shoot, and what focal lengths do you prefer? Buy the combo that breaks you your flow the least.

I do most of my general photography using a 5D these days, with a 24~105 flanked by the 17~40 and 70~200/4IS - now there's a combination and a half. I use the 40D mainly for long-lens work. But before I had a 5D my workhorse was a 20D, and I initially used the 17~40 on that, then moved to the 10~22 plus 24~105 combination. I haven't used the 17~55/2.8, but experience with the 17~40 is something of a guideline, so I'm very conscious both of the limited focal length range of the 17~40 (with the 17~55 a little better, but the wide end is still a constraint) and of the less-than-ideal changeover point for the 10~22 plus 24~105 combination. As Jim says, which tradeoof to choose really does depend on your photographic needs, there's no single right answer. What is clear is that there are no significant issues over optical performance to worry about with any of these lenses.

 

For me, in FF equivalent terms, 28mm is often not wide enough but 24mm often is - it's surprising just how different those seemingly similar focal lengths can be. So I regard it as a pity that there's no Canon EF-S equivalent of the 24~105, which would be a 15~65 or thereabouts.

I have the Sigma 10-20 and the 24-105L and it makes a great travel combo. I don't find the chnageover point much of a problem, but I always did a lot of lens changing anyway so I am used to it. YMMV.

 

I also have a Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX, and while I don't use it much these days, if I were heading out with a single lens or to a family/people shooting event this would be the focal length I would take.

 

The 24-105L is great for outdoor portraits, kids etc but not wide enough for groups in tight spaces.