Which is the better lens?

[jennifer ann]

I am a bit confused about some lenses. I was thinking to purchase the 24-105 F4L IS for a primary lens for my

XTi. I have been hearing many great things about the 17-55 F2.8 IS, so now I am unsure which would be the better

of the two. I first thought the way the 17-55 was raved about that it was an L lens, but I see its not, but I

hear the IQ is great. The things that matter most to me are IQ and a nice bokeh. I will be shooting landscapes

and weddings. Any thoughts into this matter would be greatly appreciated, as this will be my main working lens

and the only purchase I will be able to make for a while.

[JDMvW]

The 24-105 is a all-in-one solution, but for the full frame cameras like the 5D. For an XTi it is a zoom covering from "normal" to mid telephoto. If you get it, you will essentially have no wide angle coverage unless you've already got a shorter lens. The EF-S 17-55 IS is widely considered to be an L quality lens, but Canon will not label EF-S lenses so.

 

The nice thing about the 17-55 is its relatively greater aperture at f/2.8, while the 24-105 is a little slower--although the IS will make up for some of that, but then that's true even more so on the 17-55. It's a modest wide-angle to a "portrait"-length telephoto on the crop body.

 

If it has to be your "main working lens" I'd get the 17-55.

 

On the other hand, if coming up with the cash is a problem, you really should consider the new 18-55 IS "kit" lens -- for less than $200 it reviews very nicely.

[stillbound]

i have an opinion on the lenses but first I have to say that five years ago you would never had seen anyone that didn't know which lens to buy saying they were shooting weddings. It used to be you worked your way up to it...you interned/second shot/apprenticed etc with an established shooter until you had enough experience and knowledge to know what you needed to do in order to get the job done. There is a reason most unions have apprenticeships - so that you can learn from others and then begin to really make money. None of this is directly aimed at you but the market for pro photographers that spent years honing their craft has been destroyed by people that think that they can just grab a camera and say "i'm a pro"

In any event - the 17-55 is probably the better choice if you are going to stay with aps-c sized cameras...

[jennifer ann]

Actually I am apprenticing with an established photographer, and I have asked for her advice. I just thought I would get additional feed back from others. I do not consider myself a pro in any way, I am just learning and asking questions.

Thanks for your feedback.

[ryan_rittenhouse]

I recently went though this same decision myself. I ended up choosing the 24-105 because it's much more rugged (I didn't really like the feel of the 17-55) and I decided that I'd want longer reach more than I'd want the wide angle. Image quality on both was fantastic. Having the faster lens (mainly for background blur) was the main thing I wanted from the 17-55. The 24-105 gives a nice bokeh, but you need some distance to play with to really get a blurred background. I still use it for portraits but have added a 50 f1.4 to my bag for when I really want a blured background thats too close to my subject. Other than that my 24-105 rarely comes off my Rebel.

 

In the end I think it comes down to what you want more, the 2.8 blurring or the long reach of the 24-105. For landscapes I don't think it matters too much (I've found 24 plenty wide for most of my landscape pictures) but for weddings you might want either one. No matter which one you pick you'll like the results, so don't worry too much! Make sure you go and physically mess with each one though.

 

My $0.02

[f72]

i have the 24-105L and i use it with eos20d it is very sharp lens and the IS works realy good.this is the last pic i took with

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00PxBa&photo_id=7452005&photo_sel_index=0

[steve torelli]

On a crop sensor camera, the 17-55 offers a more useful FL than 24-105. The 24-105 is a great lens, I use it a lot on my 5D, but on a APS-C body, it's kind of an odd FL, especially at f/4. I'd go with the 17-55 2.8 if I were you and don't worry that it doesn't have a red stripe around it. Good luck.

[Jeff Lear]

I am very fortunate to have a shop that also rents equipment and that business model is slowly growing in the industry. I would suggest that you research the shops in your area to see if this option is available to you before you make the purchase. When I was shooting a 20D I rented the 10-22 so many times I'm sure I must have covered the shop's purchase cost.

[tdigi]

I strongly suggest trying both out ( the 17-55 and 24-105 ). I did and the 24-105 was an easy decision for me. The 17-55 is

very good ( IQ, focus speed, 2.8 etc ) but the 24-105 has that plus a professional build I would expect for $1000. To me,

maybe it was the copy they had but when I zoomed the 17-55 in and out it felt cheap.

 

The 24-105 feels so much stronger. Plus as someone mentioned above I too like the longer reach as opposed to the extra

width. This is more a personal choice of how your shooting style is. I find I crop in much more then I wish I could have had

a wider frame so its great for me.

[stillbound]

i realize after reading that over again that it sounded meaner than i intended...and i thank you for being polite about your response.

For me it really comes down to if you are going to continue to use aps-c cams - if so I think the 17-55 is the no brainer...

if not I would go with the 24-70 in order to pick up the stop and the bokeh...though some have pointed out the bokeh at f4 at 105 is actually equal to if not more than the 70 at 2.8 that won't help if the subject moved a bit in your 20th of a second shot...

 

good luck

 

JC

[tdigi]

Mistake - the 24-105 does not have 2.8. I was referring to similar great performance. Also the 17-55 is EF-S so its only for

crop sensor cameras.

[richard_crowe4]

Both are excellent lenses...

 

If you intend to stay wih the 1.6x format (which I fully intend to do) then the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is the best and

obvious choice, both for the wider end and for the constant f/2.8 aperture. This is my go-to lens. Even when shooting

with flash, it is often convenient to have that wider aperture available. The 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron is an alternate

which provides very-good image quality and is half the price of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. But, I believe that for

wedding photography, you should not nickel and dime your equipment and that you should buy the best available.

IMO, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is absolutely the best mid-range zoom available for a 1.6x format camera and is a

lens that I dearly love.

 

If you are considering switching to a full frame camera, which would probably be nice for wedding work, you basically

have two Canon mid-range "L" lenses available: the 24-70mm f/2.8L and the 24-105mm f/4L IS (there is the older 28-

70mm f/2.8 L but, I consider the newer 24-70L a better choice). Each of these

lenses has its proponents and there have been multiple posts arguing the pros and cons of each lens. The

arguments

were very common a few years ago when the 24-105mm f/4L IS lens first came upon the digital scene.

 

As I said, I use the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS as my primary, go-to, mid-range zoom lens for normal shooting and for travel. I

pair this with a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens on two bodies and that combination works extremely well for me. It is a

relatively light weight outfit which (combined with my1.4x TC) can cover a very wide range of photo opportunities. The

17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a pretty darn decent available light lens, especially when using a body that has good high ISO

capability.

 

However, I will use the 24-70mm f/2.8L as my studio lens. I like the slightly longer focal length and the extra weight

and rather narrow 24mm wide end doesn't bother me in studio work.

 

I chose the 24-70L before there was a 24-105mm f/4L or a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. But, I believe that I would still pick this

lens if I were shooting with a full-frame camera. I would base my decision on the f/2.8 aperture which provides a

brighter viewfinder image and provides better focus capability.

 

Although I like the 24-70L for studio work and will keep that lens for use in the studio, I doubt whether I would have

purchased this lens if I had owned the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens first; instead of the other way around.

[mendel_leisk]

You might consider the Canon EFs 17-85 also. It has roughly the same zoom range on crop factor (more actually) as the 24-105 on full frame, and costs around $600. It's image quality is not equal to the 17-55 but it's no slouch. It's main downside is relatively slow, variable aperture

[i._l.]

"... Although I like the 24-70L for studio work and will keep that lens for use in the studio, I doubt whether I would have

purchased this lens if I had owned the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens first; instead of the other way around..."

 

Well said, Richard.

[William Michael]

> matter most are IQ and a nice bokeh . . . shooting landscapes and weddings . . . my main working lens . . . only purchase I will be able to make. <

 

Considering the above the EF-S17 to 55F2.8IS is the better choice.

 

24 on an XTi is not wide enough to be the MAIN lens for either Weddings or Landscapes. F4 is not fast enough to be the MAIN (only?) lens for Weddings. These two criteria are more important for the outcomes listed, than comparing the IQ and Bokeh of the two lenses in question.

 

If you do literally value IQ and Bokeh as your highest priorities, then buy Prime Lenses.

 

It would be easier to give more detailed opinion if your other lenses were listed.

 

WW

[g dan mitchell]

In general, the EFS is likely to be more of a core lens on a cropped sensor body. The 24-105 is a fine lens on a cropped

sensor body, but almost all users would want to complement it with something wider since 24mm is barely wide at all on

crop.

 

Both are fine lenses if you can look past the question of whether or not the letter "L" is printed on them.

[richard_crowe4]

Both are excellent lenses...

 

If you intend to stay wih the 1.6x format (which I fully intend to do) then the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is the best and

obvious choice, both for the wider end and for the constant f/2.8 aperture. This is my go-to lens. Even when shooting

with flash, it is often convenient to have that wider aperture available. The 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron is an alternate

which provides very-good image quality and is half the price of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. But, I believe that for

wedding photography, you should not nickel and dime your equipment and that you should buy the best available.

IMO, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is absolutely the best mid-range zoom available for a 1.6x format camera and is a

lens that I dearly love.

 

If you are considering switching to a full frame camera, which would probably be nice for wedding work, you basically

have two Canon mid-range "L" lenses available: the 24-70mm f/2.8L and the 24-105mm f/4L IS (there is the older 28-

70mm f/2.8 L but, I consider the newer 24-70L a better choice). Each of these

lenses has its proponents and there have been multiple posts arguing the pros and cons of each lens. The

arguments

were very common a few years ago when the 24-105mm f/4L IS lens first came upon the digital scene.

 

As I said, I use the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS as my primary, go-to, mid-range zoom lens for normal shooting and for travel. I

pair this with a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens on two bodies and that combination works extremely well for me. It is a

relatively light weight outfit which (combined with my1.4x TC) can cover a very wide range of photo opportunities. The

17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a pretty darn decent available light lens, especially when using a body that has good high ISO

capability. However, if I were to want to use this combination as wedding tools, I would get the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS

lens because

of the extra stop of that lens.

 

Although I love the 17-55L as my genberal purpose and travel mid range zoom, I will use the 24-70mm f/2.8L as my

studio lens. I like the slightly longer focal length the 70mm gives me and the extra weight

and rather narrow 24mm wide end of the 24-70L doesn't bother me in studio work.

 

I chose the 24-70L before the 24-105mm f/4L or a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS were issued. But, I believe that I would still pick

the 24-70L if I were shooting weddings with a full-frame camera. I would base my decision on the f/2.8 aperture

which provides a

brighter viewfinder image and provides better focus capability.

 

Although I like the 24-70L for studio work and will keep that lens for use in the studio, I doubt whether I would have

purchased this lens if I had owned the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens first; instead of the other way around. The 17-55mm

plus the 70-200mm lenses would be fine for studio work.

[geoffm]

I've never shot a wedding (and never want to!) but I've always understood that you really need f/2.8 lenses (if not wider) to do this properly.

 

I do shoot landscapes, where background blur isn't often desired, and I use a 10-22 and a 24-105. I like being able to go from ultrawide to medium tele in only two lenses (less to carry).

[ky21664882483]

Joseph Carey, just out of interest, do you consider yourself a pro and if so, at which point did you become a pro? How many years did you have to photograph to become a pro? I understand what you are saying but every photographer is better of not as good as the next person and you would hope yes that with time you would master your craft, but not in all cases. Photography is such a personal thing, asking questions about the right lens to spend money on before you buy and for what you want to do in a photography forum is a good place to start, you sound like a tosser! We all have to start somewhere!

[William Michael]

<smiles at comment>

[William Michael]

`Both are fine lenses if you can look past the question of whether or not the letter "L" is printed on them.`

 

Well said.

 

WW

[dogbert]

I own the 24-105 f4L but combine it with the EF-S 10-22. Based on your described needs I would without doubt get

the 17-55 f2.8 IS. You will want an f2.8 lens at minimum for weddings.

 

Another option would be to get the Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Sigma 18-50/f2.8, as second body and a fast prime or two.

[abzphotoz]

Jenn-Your main advantage with the 24-105 is the extra focal length you will have. The main advantage with the 17-55 is the f/2.8 and that you will have a wider angle for landscapes. I was going to say the other advantage to the 24-105 is the "L" factor but I have heard very good things about the 17-55 (like it is as good as an "L"). I have never shot a wedding myself but I would think that a good flash will always be readily available for you. So wouldn't it be more beneficial to have the extra focal length? I can think of a lot more reasons to want more reach than reasons to have f/2.8. But I can also think of many reasons to want 17mm as opposed to 24 when shooting landscapes. Bottom line-you really need more than 1 lens for what you're into. One slight disadvantage to the 17-55...it is an EF-S lens which means it only works with crop bodies. Therefore if you decide to upgrade down the road to let's say, a 5D, you will not be able to use the EF-S lenses with it.

 

I have noticed that often people get somewhat offended by postings that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. The purpose of a posting is to help someone out with a certain issue about photography they are encountering.

[William Michael]

Hi Abner,

 

Two (important) points in regard to your comments:

 

1. During the course of a Wedding, whilst flash might be available, its use is often Prohibited, especially during the Ceremony.

 

2. 17mm (well more specifically, wider than 24mm) is often quite important on an XTi, for Weddings, as well as Landscapes.

 

As a specific example in tight quarters shooting at 10 ft a 24mm lens will allow a spread of about 12 ft. Which will capture B&G Minister and BM and MoH easily.

 

But if we are in a small Chapel or Church a 17mm will allow about 17 ft coverage across the horizontal, and if used with skill show little distortion at the edge.

 

17ft FoV at 10ft is very handy, truly.

 

WW

[abzphotoz]

Hey William-you're obviously more experienced with different aspects of wedding photography than I am. I was wondering what your choice would be if you could only bring 1 lens (on a crop body) to photograph a wedding (let's say for fun that you don't know where the wedding is being held). Also-would the fact that you have f/2.8 as opposed to f/4.0 really hinder you that much without being able to use a flash?

William's points are important-maybe the 17-85 would be a good option. But then again I have read that the most often used focal range for portraits (which you will be taking 1 way or the other) is between about 80 and 100mm. Again, the bottom line any way I try to look at it is that you need 2 lenses.