17-55 F2.8 vs 24-105 F4 L, which one is sharper ?

[minh_tran1]

Dear all,

 

I think to buy either one of these two lenses: 17-55 F2.8 or 24-105 F4 L, but I still hesitate, don't know which one is

sharper ? Sharp is my first criteria . I like the focal length of 24-105 and wish is has F2.8 :-). If you have experience with

both please give me advice how do you think about this choice, I want a (sharp) walk around lens

 

Thanks very much

 

Thomas T.

[trebor_navilluso]

These are two different class of lenses if used on the same body. If using a 1.6 crop body like 20D then 17-55 is a wide - modest tele adn 24-105 is a normal to tele (leaving you no wide coverage at all).

 

They are actually intended to be the same category of lens if used on the correct bodies. 17-55 = wide/normal/modest tele on crop and 25-105 also = wide/normal/modest tele on a full frame body like 5D.

 

My point in saying this is that if you only have one body, you should not be comparing these lenses as they operate in different ranges. Decide what focal lenght you need and just buy that.

 

Now in my case I have both crop and FF bodies (30D & 5D) and I happen to have both lenses. I use them both as wide/normal/modest tele as intended by Canon.

 

They are so close in sharpness that I cannot say which is better. There is always going to be some copy/sample varrience, but aside from that consider these lenses equal on Image quality.

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

In terms of pure sharpness my 17-55 is a tad better but my favorite walk around lens is the 24-105. It all depends on your shooting style. Do you mostly shoot inside? If so, the 17-55 is better. If you were to take the shooting outside the 24-105 would excel. When I shoot weddings I shoot with 2 camera's, one with the 17-55 and the other 24-70 2.8. Outside of wedding work my favorite lens is 24-105. Extra reach is better. Either way you can't go wrong...good luck. Buffdr

[steve torelli]

No one can determine which of two quality lenses are sharper across the board. There will always be minor variations with any lens.

In other words, short of comparing every single copy of a given lens and ever made, it's impossible to make a judgement. Anyway, the differences are likely to be so small, barring a defective lens, as to be unnoticeable with normal use.

Just buy the lens you think suits your style of shooting and don't worry about it.

[stephen_bay]

I pixel peep and the 24-105L is very sharp -- so much so that I don't even consider if there would be a better lens. However,

as others have mentioned, the determining factor should really be the zoom range.

[wgpinc]

I have both lenses. Anecdotally I tested both lenses informally for my own purpose in my living room one evening at various focal lengths. I concluded that my copy of the 17-55mm is slightly sharper than the 24-105mm. There was not enough difference to make me want to use one over the other. I use one or the other depending on what I need. I photographed a friends wedding a few weeks back. The constraints were outdoor wedding primarily, I didn't want to get in the way ot the professional hired to do the job and I didn't want to appear too professional. I brought one 40D body with the 24-105mm. It allowed me to stand back a little more to stay out of the way and still get some good pictures that the grooms mother and the B & G liked very much. I do some pet photography and I use either the 24-105mm or the 70-200mm. For general photography I keep the 17-55mm on my camera most of the time. If you need the wide and 2.8 you need the 17-55mm. If you use the extra length you want the 24-105mm. Very personal choices dependent on how you see. When I get a FF camera later this year things will be different.

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Selecting between these two very excellent lenses on the basis of "sharpness" is like selecting between a dollar bill

and a stack of four quarters on the basis of "value."

 

<p>On the other hand, the <i>significant</i> differences between these lenses include price, maximum aperture, focal

length range, weight and size, and so forth - and among these I think the <i>most</i> significant, by a large margin, is focal length.

 

<p>I presume that you have a cropped sensor camera body (a Rebel or a X0D model) since you are considering the

EFS lens, which will only work on the cropped sensor bodies. If so, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS has features that may make it a more

appropriate fit for "walk around" use on a cropped sensor camera. Its focal length range covers a reasonably wide to

moderately long <i>normal</i> range on your camera, it provides the f/2.8 aperture, it includes IS ("image stabilization"), and its

optical quality is reportedly great.

 

<p>The 24-105mm f/4 L IS is, for most people, less appropriate as a walk around lens on a cropped sensor body -

though some use it that way. 24mm is barely wide at all, though 105mm is further into the telephoto range. It is

significantly larger and heavier than the EFS lens. I used this lens on a cropped sensor body for about a year. It was an

outstanding performer, but for me it was not wide enough to be my only lens and I virtually always also carried a wider

zoom to complement it. (The 24-105 can be an outstanding general purpose zoom on full frame bodies, and that is how I use it.)

 

<p>May I ask about your need for "sharpness?" Are you new to DSLR photography or are you experienced in this area?

 

<p>Many new DSLR shooters get the idea (often, unfortunately, from reading forums like this one) that they have to spend a

ton of money right of the bat to get the "best" lenses if they want "sharp" images. But they don't have sufficient personal

experience shooting DSLR cameras to be able to make a wise decision about what lens features will ultimately be best

for their type of photography. Instead, they let others tell them which lens to get - and on these forums this advice is

often more along the lines of "get what I like" than it is tailored to the poster's needs - which, of course, probably cannot

be known yet anyway.

 

<p>What I'm getting at is this: if you are new to DSLR photography, before you spend a lot of money on decisions you don't understand

you might consider starting with the excellent EFS 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 image stabilized kit lens. Shoot a ton of photos

with it and you'll start to figure out for yourself what _your_ needs are and what features are important. At i>tha</i>t point it will be the

time to start spending

money on high end glass.

 

<p>(The fact that you are trying to decide between a 17-55 and a 24-105 on the basis of the

phantom called "sharpness" is what makes me think this might be a better approach for you.)

 

<p>Dan

 

<p>BTW: "Sharpness" in prints is not wholly a function of what lens you select. Take a look at this <a

href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Q0A4">recent thread</a> about lack of sharpness - compare

the OP's "not sharp" photo with the result after a bit of post-processing. Open both side by side if possible. There was no

lens caused sharpness problem evident in this image at all.

[gerrymorgan]

<p>

I use both these lenses. Both are very sharp (to my eye, equally sharp). Also, the 24-105 is good even at f/4. As others have said, you need to decide based on focal length and aperture. You mentioned that you like the 24-105 range, but that f/2.8 is important to you. If you could live without the 70-105 range, perhaps you should consider the 24-70 f/2.8.

</p>

<p>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=398&Camera=396&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=355">This comparison</a> might give you some idea. It's not a true comparison, though, because different camera models were used.

</p>

[JDMvW]

"Sharpness" - Was ist das Sharlie?

 

Do you mean number of lines resolution? Lack of chromatic aberration? Contrast?

 

All of the major manufacturer lenses are acceptably "sharp" in that they will produce large prints from the highest resolution your camera sensors support.

 

If you want to pixel peep and compare technical measurements, look at the reviews at Photozone.de that provide exactly those data points. Some of the lenses I love best and use most are not the sharpest in optical resolution, but they sure serve my needs.

[minh_tran1]

Thankyou for all helpfull advices.

 

When I only ask for "Sharpness" that means aside of all other aspects (price, resolution, contrast, CA or Photoshop)

 

I'm not a pro but I have used SLR since at least 10 years starting with film bodies. I have tried 24-70 F2.8, it's quite sharp (just a little bit more than the cheap 50mm 1.8) but too heavy. I have owned the 70-200 F4L and like its sharpness very much but I didn't keep it because I like the IS version more, will buy it but not for right now. Last weekend I have rent the 17-55 F2.8 but it was broken, at the end I could get some photos from it, the sharpness is very good, but I find that I prefer a little bit more reach, so there is only the 24-105 F4 can be candidate, but I don't have experience with it. Recently I have bought the Rebel XSi (upgrade from XTi), over the 40D because I like its lightweight and I don't like the joystick of 20D/30D/40D (will sacrifce for it if Canon reputs the ECF on DSLR bodies), not because the 150$ difference.

 

I have already tried the 18-55 F3.5-5.6 IS and have sold it, it's quite good but not good enough for my

taste. Now I have only a cheap 50mm MkII, an EF-S 60mm and an EF-S 55-250 IS (not as sharp as 70-200 F4 but lightweight + IS), and I'm looking for a good lightweight, sharp walk around normal zoom. I have read a lot of reviews on the Internet, some ppl saying that the 17-55 F2.8 is a sharper than the 24-105 F4, but it has problem with dust inside.

 

It seems that my question is a little bit confus on the focal length, that because the widest focal I have used (with the 17-55mm) is around 20-21mm, so I think the 24-105 will be adequate for me with more reach. I like the bokeh of F2.8 more than F4, but if the 24-105 is sharper I will go for it ("Sharp is my first criteria").

 

Thanks anyway for all responses

 

Regards

 

Thomas T.

[alan_green4]

there isn't a zoom lens sharper than the 17-55. to me, the color is also cleaner on the 17-55. the 24-105 has

slightly chalky color, as do other normal L zooms.

 

it's funny, the 70-200 series doesn't have this issue

 

if i used a 1d i would prefer the 24-105, though, because of its range. on a crop body this lens doesn't make

that much sense for a walkaround (unless you don't care for wide angle coverage)

[g dan mitchell]

If you cannot get "sharp" photos from the 18-55 IS lens at normal print sizes, much less at smaller on screen jpgs you will

NOT see any significant additional sharpness from the other lenses, and you _certainly_ won't see the very subtle

differences among them.

 

Dan

[exrty_exrty]

Hello,

 

The 17-55 is the best zoom for APS-C sensor. I have both 17-55 and 18-55 IS and the local-contrast, curvature of field is best on the 17-55. Get a 85/1.8 and you'll get a good combinaison.

 

Dust that can occur on the 17-55 can be removed by yourself. (http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/drp)

 

Read this :

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/17-85compare/index.htm

 

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/zoomzoom

[eugenechua]

i have owned both lenses and i think the sharper one was the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, by just a teeny weeny bit that its almost

negligible. i sold it a month back and bought the 24-105mm f/4L IS. why? more focal range, built quality, and it will let me

do most portrait shots.

 

i'm waiting to trade the 24-105mm though, for the upcoming 24-70 f/2.8L IS which i have no idea when it would come!