EF-S 17-55mm or EF 24-105mm for an XSi?

[rubo]

<p>

 

<p>Before this turns in to 1 is sharper than 2, or 2 has a better contrast than 1, let me tell you this is not the question.<br>

What i would like to know is which one would YOU prefer as a walk around lens on a 1.6 crop body?<br>

Main use would be for hiking, general snapshots, landscape, etc.<br>

The 17-55 is appealing for the bigger f2.8, but i feel it might not have long enough reach.<br>

My current 28-135mm is a fine lens, but i do need something wider (and if it's sharper it would be a plus).<br>

Having IS is important to me, so the 24-70mm is not a valid choice for me.<br>

I eventually want to get one of the 70-200mm (either f2.8 or f4, depending on the $$$ at the time) with IS, and the EF-S 10-22mm, but that's later on.</p>

<p>I was seriously considering Sigma 18-125mm, which would have been a perfect lens for me, but it's not sharp (from what i read online).</p>

<p>Thank you in advance for your opinions.</p>

 

</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>The EFS 17-55 f/2.8 is the sharpest of the lot and would easily fit your described needs. Add the 10-22 and the 70-200 and you have continous coverage from 10mm to 200mm with 3 very sharp lens. Of course the 70-200 adds a bit of weight for hiking. And of course no IS with the 10-22. I would forsake an all in one zoom since most if not all suffer in IQ in one respect or another.<br>

I have the 28-135 also and considering the price it's a pretty good lens.</p>

<p> </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>"which one would YOU prefer as a walk around lens on a 1.6 crop body?"</p>

<p>No question, the 17-55. You already said your 28-135 isn't wide enough. Trust me that the 24-105 isn't much wider.</p>

<p>FAIW, you can have multiple walkaround lenses. Your 28-135 covers you for telephoto-ish range. A 17-55 would cover you for wide-ish. Just select your lens du jour on the basis of where you'll be walking and what you're expecting to see.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I shoot full frame and I own the 24-105. I used the 24-105 on a cropped sensor body for about a year.</p>

<p>For a walk around lens on a cropped sensor body today I would almost certainly select the 17-55mm EFS lens.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[claytontullos]

<p>I use the 10-22 for my walk around lens. I use the 50 1.8 for portraits (very small and very light). I use the 70-200f4l for special occassions that require it.</p>

[landscape_shooter]

<p>I used to use the 10-22 and 24-105 setup, but I did not like the change over point at 22. I sold the 24-105 and bought the 17-55. I am really happy with the 17-55. Sharper, faster focus, 2.8. Sometimes 24 was wide enough for a walk around, sometimes not. Anything indoors, like at Christmas or weddings I needed wider and didn't like switching all the time. The 17-55 beats my (sold) 24-105 in everything but build quality and reach. It focuses faster due to the 2.8 and high precision sensor on the 40D. I find the wider end much more attractive than 55-105 and 2.8 great. I am able to blur the background on shots with children toward the 55mm end. Also I found myself carrying something longer than 105 alot anyway. You should ask yourself, do you want a faster lens that's wider? If so go with the 17-55. If you are happy with your 28-135 but are unhappy with your pictures and think the 24-105 will change something, then go with that. Check your exif data and see how often you shoot at what focal lenghts. The 18-55 IS Kit lens is also quite good in image quality for only 150.00 or so.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>I have an XSi and for street shooting use a 17-50 f/2.8.</p>

[rubo]

<p>

 

<p>I appreciate all your comments, and please keep them coming.<br>

Landscape Shooter - it's not that i'm unhappy with the pics out of 28-135, i just need something wider (for indoor shots). Also since i'm shooting almost always in manual having a constant f (either 4 or 2.8) is going to be a plus.<br>

Exif data is of no help to me, i shoot at all focal lengths of the 28-135 (and don't really have a preferred length).<br>

I tried 18-55mm IS, but didn't like the pictures (even compared to my 28-135), so don't want to get that one.<br>

Probably the only reason why i like the idea of 24-105mm over 17-55mm is the versatility, but that's exactly why i'm asking this question, to see what other people think.<br>

It's always good to hear others opinions :)</p>

 

</p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>I'd go with the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, 24mm isn't wide on 1.6 crop.</p>

[claytontullos]

<p>10-22<br>

<img src="http://claytontullos.com/images/oregon/50d/_MG_0205.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="533" /></p>

<p><img src="http://claytontullos.com/images/oregon/50d/_MG_0447.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://claytontullos.com/images/oregon/50d/_MG_0198.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[richard_muscat_azzopardi]

<p>I'm looking for the exact same solution. However at the moment I have a 17-55mm lens stuck onto my 50D and was not too impressed with the detail at the edges. Now it might have been the copy of the lens I was shooting with, but from what I've seen I'm not sure I'd consider buying it myself.</p>

 

[matthijs]

<p>Hmmm... in danger of sounding silly (or pompous); the lens I have on me. Or rather on my body. Camera that is.</p>

<p>I can have great fun with just a 50mm on my XTi, at other times I take a 70-200 and at other times I use a 18-200.</p>

<p>With all these lenses I come home with presentable pictures.</p>

<p>Most practical of course is the 18-200 (mine is the old Sigma version but I would advise getting a newer IS or OS version) which can make pretty pictures unless you're picky.</p>

<p>Don't let anyone tell you that you can't make a pretty picture using a mediocre lens. You can.<br>

More important is the focal length you prefer and I can't tell you that.</p>

<p>You wrote that the 28-135 is often not wide enough. I can believe that. But the second question is of course; how often do you use the long end and is that long enough?</p>

<p>Considering that you don't like the 18-55 IS you might be in trouble. Your wishes might exceed the laws of physics... (wider & longer & better IQ all at the same time.)</p>

<p>Maybe you should switch bodies and use a FF camera with your 28-135?</p>

<p>(-:</p>

<p>That probably didn't help but I hope there's a lesson hidden in there somewhere.</p>

<p>Matthijs.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>This is actually a more difficult question than what I *think* you intended. I would have to say I find the EFS 17-55mm f2.8 IS on my 50D provides me great satisfaction for the stuff <strong>I like to shoot</strong>. Based on my intended purpose, it does a great job for this focal range/crop body combination.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>OK, I was going to stay out of this, but I just have to say that the APS-C sized sensor camera lens that is nearly the same for those cameras as the 24-105mm is for the 35mm-sized sensors is the <strong>EF-S 17-85mm IS</strong> . If you can tolerate the aperture range it is great. It has some warts, relatively easily fixed in post-processing; but it still is the most used lens in my EF-S inventory. I have both the 24-105 and the 17-85 and find them easily the most useful lenses I have for the different sensor cameras. The IS makes up for a lot.</p>

[mphoto gallery]

<p>I now use a 10-22 and a 24-70/24-105. I used to use a 28-135 and a 17-40. After analyzing some 9000 images to determine the focal lenghts I use, I sold the 28 and the 17.</p>

<p>I found the 17 was not wide enough for indoor architectural images nor wide enough for sweeping landscape shots. It was not long enough either. Most of my images were taken at 28, 100 and 135 and after adding my 10-22, the grouping changed to 10, 20, 80, 135.</p>

<p>Rather than getting a lens and feeling forced to change my approach, I decided to sell the 17-40 (not wide or long enough for me) and replace that and my 28-135 with a 24-105 (and I bought the 24-70 as my wife and I each have a camera, at least, that's the logic I used to buy two lenses :)</p>

<p>The 10-22 with the 24-104 and my 100-400 cover my needs with three lenses. I still swap out the 24 for the 10 so I am safe in saying I have two walk around lenses, it just depents where I am going. One lens is in my fanny pack and one on the body....</p>

[rubo]

<p>

 

<p>Matthijs - You have a valid point about 18-200 being the most practical, but i try to stay away from such a big range zooms. I've tried several of them (Sigma, Tamron & the new Canon) and didn't like the way images came out. Maybe it's just me :)<br>

Don't want to go FF because of the size/weight of the camera. I love the way XSi/XTi feels in my hands.</p>

<p>Mark Kissel - i know exactly what you mean :)</p>

<p>JDM - i knew the EF-S 17-85mm would come up, LOL. My friend has one & i've shot with it.<br>

Maybe he got a bad copy of the lens (or maybe my 28-135 is a really good one), but i was not impressed with it. 28-135 was sharper, had a better contrast and generally produced better images (again, maybe it was a bad copy). And i'm not talking about shooting test charts, just landscapes. The focal length was perfect, thought.</p>

<p>Mark Harrison - That's along the lines i'm thinking. 17 is not wide enough on a 1.6 crop body (the reason why i want a 10-22). And was just wondering between 17-55 and 24-105 as my general all-around lens.</p>

<p>90% of my shots are spontaneous. i just see something i like and take a picture. 90% of them are done hand-held (why i need the IS).<br>

Since i work in front of a computer all day, some times after sitting home for about 3-4 days with 2-4 hours of sleep each day, i just grab the camera and walk around the NYC, aimlessly. When i was in LA, i would just drive around.</p>

<p>The other 10% is when i can prepare for a shot, so if i need a specific lens, i just rent one.</p>

<p>My dream kit would consist of EF-S 10-22mm, EF or EF-S 24-70mm IS (the f stop being either 4 or 2.8, doesn't really matter to me much) and a EF 70-200mm IS (don't think i would need longer than 200mm). 10-22 and 70-200 are not a problem, but the middle one doesn't exist (and as far as i can see will not any time soon), so i want to see what others, with more experience, think of the two i mentioned.</p>

<p>So far more people suggest 17-55 over 24-105.<br>

Lets see how this goes.</p>

<p>Thanks again and keep them coming.</p>

 

 

</p>

[ed_v.]

I sold my 28-135 and use the EF-S 17-85 lens and appreciate the wide end. So, I'll add another vote for the 17-55 f/2.8 if those are your two choices. Actually, I'd have to agree with JDM that the 17-85 has a lot of merit as a walk-around lens.

[jeff_bubis]

<p>For me, this a no brainer. I've got the 17-55 and a 70-200/2.8 on a 40D. The 17-55 is on the camera 90% of the time, though. There is one - and only one - advantage to the 24-105 IMHO. That is - if you're thinking about FF at some point in the future. I like the 17-55 enough to keep a crop body forever, though, just so that I can use it. I think the 17-55 is a nearly perfect lens. Certainly, you're right a little more reach would be great, and so would L-quality construction (it's near L, but still with plastic and a lack of sealing). Those are my only gripes. I agonized before buying it - questioning of it was worth the steep price, but if I had to do it all over again, I would in a second.</p>

[mike_atwell]

<p>The 17-55 is MY ideal walk-around lens on an APS-C. Wide to modest tele - is great for my walking-around, street scene, urban landscape and nature landscapes. Fast enouugh to hand hold nearly anywhere -even indoors without flash (with IS), so why compromise with anything else - for an APS-C?</p>

<p> </p>

[mbwakali]

<p>I have a 17-55 on a crop sensor and I love it! I've used the 24-70 and 24-105 and I find myself reaching for more at the wide end. 24 is a weird place to start for a crop sensor.</p>

[JeffOwen]

<p>I would choose the 17-55 any day if only for it's wider angle of view.<br>

I have a 40D and have been looking at this lens in preference to my 17-85 f4 that I use as a walk about lens now. I do a lot of travelling and usually carry 3 lenses; 10-22, 17-85 IS and the 70-300 DO IS. Together they are fairly weighty so when I saw the Canon 17-55 f2.8 (645gm)is nearly 50% heavier than my 17-85 (475gm) I am having second thoughts. I have however been looking at the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which is 430gm and half the price! It also has a pretty good review for IQ.</p>

[jeff_bubis]

<p>The question is - is the IS worth the extra cost. For me, it was. I agree, though, that the Tamron is a very compelling lens for the price.</p>