Need Help Picking A Lens For 30D

[Jesse Williamson]

I'm in the market for a zoom and have narrowed it down to two choices; 24-105 f/4L or the 17-55 f/2.8. Both are supposed to be wonderful. My problem is the future. I plan on going full frame in the future, but because of the cost it will probably be awhile.


I researched both extensively, and know the benefits of both, it really just comes down to future use, and whether or not the resale market is any good.


So do I buy a lens that won't work on the camera I hope to get and pray I can sell it, or do I just get the L?


Thanks for your insight.

[Brendan7]

It all depends on the aperture. Do you need f/2.8? Do you need action-stopping shutter speeds in low light? If no, go for the 24-105.


I imagine the 17-55 could resell for a decent value.

[clemmb]

Go ahead and buy for the ful frame. Consider the EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L or stretch a little further and get the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II


Mark

[SupraSonic]

I would consider 24-105 L F4 you can't go wrong.

[Daniel Browning]

Both are supposed to be wonderful.


Yes, but some are more wonderful than others. [:D] The 17-55 is wider, faster, and sharper, while the 24-105 is longer, more versatile, and better built.



I plan on going full frame in the future, but because of the cost it will probably be awhile.


If it's not within the next 12 months, I say to go for the 17-55.






So do I buy a lens that won't work on the camera I hope to get and pray I can sell it, or do I just get the L?





You don't have to worry one whit about if you can sell it. The only question is whether you sell it for 30% off the purchase or price, or only 20%. Either way, well worth it to have a full stop more light.


The reason why I suggest the 17-55 is because I think wide angle is important. I love wide angle photography -- I could not make do with only "normal" and "telephoto" shots. I agree with Robert Capa, the famous TIME photographer:
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]<span style="visibility: visible;" id="main"]<span style="visibility: visible;" id="search"]"If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough,"


Wide angle lenses let you get closer to the subject and still bring in the context of the environment, whereas telephoto lenses make the subject more distance, and isolate and remove the subject from its environment. Of course, that may be exactly what you want!


I know what you're thinking. "Did he recommend the 24-105 or 17-55?"
Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost
track myself. But being as both lenses have a 44mm, the most powerful focal length in the world, and would shoot your headshots really clean, you've got to
ask yourself one question: Do I feel wide? Well, do ya, punk?

[clemmb]

The 17-55 is wider, faster, and sharper, while the 24-105 is longer, more versatile, and better built.





I checked the ISO charts for 28, 35 &amp; 50mm. The 24-105mm looks sharper to me.


Mark

[Daniel Browning]

I checked the ISO charts for 28, 35 &amp; 50mm. The 24-105mm looks sharper to me.


You did not perform the comparison correctly. Read the Lenses should be critically compared to each other only with test samples from the same camera body..


(Emphasis mine.) This is really important, because the 24-105 would look much worse if the chart had a 50D body. For example, look at the 28-135. On that lens, both bodies are available in the test:


28-135 on 1Ds3 @ 28mm f/3.5 vs 28-135 on 50D @ 28mm f/3.4 (http://the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx]Chart Help Page where it says this:



<p style="padding-left: 30px;)


See how much worse the 50D looks? If the chart for 50D+24-105 was available, you'd see that it is worse than 50D+17-55.

[Jon Ruyle]

I agree with Robert Capa, the famous TIME photographer:
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]<span style="visibility: visible;" id="main"]<span style="visibility: visible;" id="search"]"If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough,"





I guess I know now why my macro shots turn out so much better than my astrophotos. :)

[Jesse Williamson]

I've heard that the 17-55 has issues with dust; something I assume the 24-105 wouldn't have. I'm still new to the world of photography, so I'm not sure how much of a concern that should be. Also, how likely do you guys think Canon is to release a 24-70 F/2.8L IS? I'm sure it wouldn't be cheap, but would probably be worth saving up for.

[Daniel Browning]

I guess I know now why my macro shots turn out so much better than my astrophotos. :)


[:D]






I've heard that the 17-55 has
issues with dust; something I assume the 24-105 wouldn't have. I'm
still new to the world of photography, so I'm not sure how much of a
concern that should be.





It's true; the 17-55 does get a lot more dust than the 24-105. The only question is whether it will be important or not. Personally, I don't think it has any appreciable effect on image quality, so I think the only negative effect will be on resale value.






Also, how likely do you guys think Canon is to
release a 24-70 F/2.8L IS? I'm sure it wouldn't be cheap, but would
probably be worth saving up for.





My guess is that it is likely.

[Jesse Williamson]

Thanks for the help everyone. I think I'll be going with the 17-55. It doesn't have quite as much reach as I'd like, but I think the f/2.8 will make up for that for me. Now I just have scratch some cash together.

[clemmb]

I checked the ISO charts for 28, 35 &amp; 50mm. The 24-105mm looks sharper to me.


You did not perform the comparison correctly. Read the Lenses should be critically compared to each other only with test samples from the same camera body..


(Emphasis mine.) This is really important, because the 24-105 would look much worse if the chart had a 50D body. For example, look at the 28-135. On that lens, both bodies are available in the test:


28-135 on 1Ds3 @ 28mm f/3.5 vs 28-135 on 50D @ 28mm f/3.4 (http://the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx]Chart Help Page where it says this:



<p style="padding-left: 30px;)


See how much worse the 50D looks? If the chart for 50D+24-105 was available, you'd see that it is worse than 50D+17-55.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I hear what you are saying and it makes sense so I did a test of my own.


First I looked at Bryan's ISO chart comparison between the canon and tamron 17-55. It looks to me like the tamron is a little sharper than the canon.


I own a tamron 28-75, tamron 17-55 and two canon 24-105s. My 17-55 is a little sharper than my 28-75. I think I have a good copy.


I tested the tamron 17-55 and my 25-105 both on my XTi(same body). Both lenses wide open(tamron at f2.8 &amp; 35mm, canon at f4 &amp; 35mm), same ISO, etc...


The 24-105 is noticably sharper.


I know my test is not scientific but I have always gotten sharper photos from my 24-105.


Mark

[Daniel Browning]

I tested the tamron 17-55 and my 25-105 both on my XTi(same body). Both lenses wide open(tamron at f2.8 &amp; 35mm, canon at f4 &amp; 35mm), same ISO, etc...


The 24-105 is noticably sharper.


I know my test is not scientific but I have always gotten sharper photos from my 24-105.





Interesting. Thank you for sharing your results. The only time I had the 24-105 was back when I had the 20D and 5D. On the 20D, I got sharper results from the Tamron 17-50 than the 24-105 (at 35mm anyway... 17mm on the Tamron has a lot of field curvature). It's possible that I've been wrong about the 17-50 being sharper than the 24-105 all this time. (The 20D doesn't have liveview, so it's difficult to be 100% certain of critical focus, even when taking a lot of shots with focus bracketing. That may have affected my results.)

[Jon Ruyle]

Both lenses wide open(tamron at f2.8 &amp; 35mm, canon at f4 &amp; 35mm), same ISO, etc...


The 24-105 is noticably sharper.





Wait, though- it isn't surprising that the Canon would be sharper wide open. Correct me if I'm wrong, Daniel, but when you said the 17-55 was sharper, did you not mean that it would be sharper at the same f number?

[Daniel Browning]

Wait, though- it isn't surprising that the Canon would be sharper wide open. Correct me if I'm wrong, Daniel, but when you said the 17-55 was sharper, did you not mean that it would be sharper at the same f number?


Actually, I meant both. I found the 17-55 and 17-50 to be so much sharper that even at f/2.8 they could beat the 24-105, and at f/4 it was an even bigger difference.

[clemmb]

Wait, though- it isn't surprising that the Canon would be sharper wide open. Correct me if I'm wrong, Daniel, but when you said the 17-55 was sharper, did you not mean that it would be sharper at the same f number?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I shoot weddings. When I was shooting weedings with the XTi and Tamron 17-50, I was very pleased with the results but when I upgraded to the 24-105 I saw that my shots were overall sharper. I would shoot the tamron at f4.0 with flash and I would shoot the canon at f4.5 with flash and IS off. Always on tripod.


I did run into issues with 24 not being wide enough so I would have to switch to my tamron.


I purchased the 24-105 and then later another 24-105 as a kit lens with my 5D. I now wish I had originally purchased the 24-75 f2.8 so now I would have both. Hindsite is always 20/20.


Mark

[scalesusa]

In the almost 3 years I've owned my 17-55mm lens, it has zero visible dust. It is the only lens i keep a filter on, just because of the stories. I also have a 24-105, and its good on a crop camera, but not wide enough. My 17-55mm IS lived on my 40D until I sold it last week.


I'll sell it now, but do not regret buying it and using it for almost 3 years. I won't lose much if any money selling it, since prices have went up on new ones. I also have a 17-40mm thatI bought for my FF. It takes nice images on my 5D MK II, but never gets used on my 40D, the 17-55 is much better.