24-105 f4 vs. 17-55 f2.8 debate with a twist

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by federico_ruiz, Feb 4, 2011.

  1. Hello to all! It is a pleasure to be part of this community!
    I know the debate about the 24-105 vs 17-55 for cropped cameras has been brought up quite a few times, and I have read the responses of most of them...
    However, if you happen to own the tokina 11-16 f2.8 already, wouod you go for the 24-105 or you will still choose the 17-55?
  2. The comparable APS-C lens for the EF 24-105mm f/4 is the EF-S 15-85mm IS lens. The 24-105mm is not really comparable to the EF-S 17-55mm in that it is both longer and is slower, not f/2.8.

    I love my EF 24-105mm lens on my 5D, but I just don't find a "normal" to longer telephoto all that great a range for a "walkaround" lens on an APS-C body (many do, however). I keep and use an older EF-S 17-85mm lens on those cameras.
    The competition for the EF-S 17-55mm is in the area of its aperture of f/2.8, not its focal length. An alternative for it is the EF 16-35mm f/2.8, but here the advantage of the EF-S lens is that it also has IS on it, in addition to being about 1/3rd cheaper, if cheap is a word that is appropriate here.
  3. I have both lenses. I use the 24-105mm on my 5D II. The Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS is so good it is a major reason to own and use a crop camera. The Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 (VC or Non-VC) and the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS lenses are also very good, less expensive alternatives. Of course nobody should try to tell you what you should use on your camera or how you should see. Mileages vary. Good luck!
  4. I don't think you'll miss the 17-23 range by going with the 24-105, and you'll get more on the tele end that way. I have a 10-20 and the 24-105 for my 7D, and I don't find myself looking for anything wider than 24 most of the time. I find being stuck with a tele limit of 50 or 55 too restrictive.
    If you like to shoot at f/2.8 a lot though, you might want to consider the 24-70 f/2.8. It doesn't have IS, but it is a stop faster.
  5. I have the 24-105 on my 7D and love the combo. I gave a hard look at the 17-55 and decided that long end wouldn't be long enough for me. I would like the 2.8 and missed it on XTi. However on the 7D and the high ISO performance, I don't seem to miss the extra stop. However another stop of light is never a bad thing...

    I have yet to really say the 24 wasn't wide enough for me.... My next lens will most likely be the Tokina not sure if I will get the 11-16 or the 12-24 version.
    For the same reason I very happy with the high iso shots my 7D can provide, if I nail the exposure.
  6. I was going to say, that currently I am able to get most of my shots with the 28mm end of my current lens, but I have to admit sometimes I need a wider end... I used my sister's 17-55 and found myself zooming most of the times, and not feeling too comfortable with the short tele end...
    If only the 15-85 was f4 fixed :(
    I did shoot one event inside a church and the 17-55 was a savior! with no strobes I would have been in trouble
    I will be buying a studio set this spring. I also think the 28-135 is not sharp enough for my needs..
  7. I own both, along with a 10-22 APS-C, 70-200/2.8 IS II, and a smattering of primes in between. Any apparent focal length overlap is merely a coincidental convenience. Each is unique and excels in its respective niche and role. The 24-105/4 is great as a walkaround lens on APS-C. It is heavier and better built than the 17-55/2.8, which I find too often is too short to be the all purpose walkaround. It excels indoors where the wide end is very welcome, and f/2.8 is sometimes shallow enough. If I had to leave one behind, I would pack the 17-55/2.8, and cover the "hole" with the 50/1.4 and 100/2.8. The 70-200/2.8 is larger and heavier than I like carry without a specific purpose in mind.
  8. To Fredrico
    I also think the 28-135 is not sharp enough for my needs. Have you tried this lens. Mine is very sharp, just not quite wide enough for a crop camera​
  9. Graham, yes I currently own the 28-135, and have seen that some pictures when seen 100% are somewhat soft, especially wide open (Which is quite slow at 5.6 @ 135mm).
    Could it be that I got a bad copy? I must admit that I have been learning A LOT along the way, and perhaps assumed that all lenses were great, and did not bother to check as soon as I got it...
    I will perform some test suggested in this site, and check the results...
  10. I have both, I use the 17-55 2.8 more. There is nothing like having an straight f 2.8 zoom.
  11. To be honest I think it is just what you get used to. So for me using a 10-22 and 24-105 just means I see in uwide to
    normal to med tele.

    But I come from the old film days using primes so I don't mind the odd lens change, not having overlap I don't see as
    an issue. I could also use the 17-40 but I tend to just use the former pair.
  12. Both the Tamron 17-55 f/2.8 and the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 are excellent lens on a crop camera, great value on either one and they both get excellent reviews. I have both the non stabilized versions, I also own the 24-70L and the 24-105L, will soon be selling one just been having trouble deciding which one (over a year now on trying to decide).
  13. I also have the 10-22 and 24-105 combo and I think it works well for me. Honestly, the 24-105 is on my 7D most of the time and I have to have a reason to switch to the ultrawide. I will admit, that f/2.8 would be really nice, but I don't think I'd want to trade focal length on the long end to get it. In the end that's the decision you have to make. Do you need focal length or do you need a faster lens? Given IS and decent high ISO performance of the 7D, I rarely need f/2.8 and I do have a couple of fast primes if I find that I do need it.
  14. Just want to mention the used Canon EF 17-35/2.8 L, used Canon EF 20-35/2.8 L, or used Canon EF 24-70/2.8 L as possible excellent alternatives. Then add one of the 70-200 L lenses later.

Share This Page