My predicament

[Alex Bishton]

I have a 40D. I really want to buy the 24-105 f/4 L IS USM because of it's range, build and image quality, but seeing as I have a 1.6x camera, would it be better to buy the EF-S 17-55 IS USM? My head says so, but I'm a sucker for that red ring.
If anyone has used either (or both) of these lenses, tell me which one you prefer using.

[crystalshadow]

I have a 40D and the 24-105 f/4L and think they make a great combo. I take a lot of pictures that need a real wide angle and with the exception of the occasional indoor snapshot I very rarely miss having the extra wide end. I really don't miss it when I start using the longer reach of the 24-105 as more often than not I want a tighter crop of everything. In the end it comes down to what you want to do. I have no doubt that no matter which one you pick, you'll use it as wide and narrow as it goes, and occasionally wish you had the features of the other one.

[Itheone]

I have the 24-105 and it hardly ever gets dismounted, it's a great all around lens with decent zoom range and just wide enough for most occasions. I do wish it was a f/2.8 for those dimmer moments in life when youcan't use the flash but other then that it's a great piece of glass. Oh, and don't forgetit has a red stripe ;)

[Tom Wertman]

I have both. I shoot weddings. I use the 17-55 f/2.8on a 40D and the 24-105 f/4.0 on a 5D. The extra stop is nice for poorly lit churches (most are). But if I am shooting more than 2 people I stop it down to 5.6-8.0 depending on the lighting for better DOF. So now it comes down to both lenses being used at the same range of f/l. Without pixel peeping the proof for me is in the quality of the print. Later when I present the photos to my clients they really can't tell the difference. So I think your choice comes down to how often you want to go wide angle. On a 40D the 17-55 is going to be quite a bit wider than the 24-105 (17 vs. 38). The 17-55 is an excellant lens. If the redring means that much to you then you have to justify it by what you shoot and how often. As for my choice in a walk around lens the 24-105 wins but that is because it is on the 5D. 24 is wide enough 95% of the time and the extra length is nice to have.

[Max]

I have both. I bought the EFS lens to go with my 40D. It takes great photos and was the lens I used most often.


I just upgraded to the 5dm2 with the 25-105 f/4. I am impressed with it as well.


I would suggest to forget about the red ring and decide if the wide angle and 2.8 out weight the extra reach of the 105 with the 4.0


If you have no other lense on the low light wide angle end of things, I would choose the efs lens.

[GoinCarCrazy]

I may be presenting a one sided view, but I bought the 17-55IS for the sheer fact of hand-holdability. It's fairly light weighing around a pound so its a good walk around lens, I find the IQ to be leaps and bounds better than my 100mm or even my 100-400L, and I can take reasonably sharp shots handheld at 1/2 second exposures with no shake at all thanks to the IS (example: the image below. The blur is made in photoshop to make the car pop a bit more than a static background, but everything came out pretty darn clear, especially with the only light being from some Christmas lights). I think the 17-55IS is a great lens, although a bit pricey, oh so worth it in the end.


http://fc86.deviantart.com/fs41/i/2009/014/6/a/From_Modena_With_Speed_by_NC_Photography.jpg

[martyn]

I've been pondering the same thing myself and a big pull for getting the 24-105 for me would be if I ever end up getting a 5D or other non 1.6x body then I've got a general purpose lens thats going to work with it.

[mark]

what i cant understand in the first place is why canon locks the ef-s lenses to a crop body only ..so you are unable to use them if you move to full size...the 17-55 is a wonderful lens deserving of an L and that red ring .... why they dont just produce them all in an EF mount so the work on either a crop or full frame is quite simply beyound me

[Colin]

<p style="margin-left: 4.8pt; margin-right: 4.8pt;"]<span style="font-size: 7pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]They build it for a crop body so that they can build the most cost-effective lens to perform with a small sensor. A smaller sensor doesn't need as much glass, because it doesn't require as much total light, because there's less surface area on which to project the image. If you built the equivalent EF-S lens to work on a full-frame body, it would have to be physically larger, heavier, and more expensive. It would be... an EF lens.<o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin-left: 4.8pt; margin-right: 4.8pt;"]<span style="font-size: 7pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]I think Bryan did an example of what would happen if you could connect an EF-S lens, by using an extension tube that allowed mounting. What you got was an image that was a shaded circle within the full frame image.<o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin-left: 4.8pt; margin-right: 4.8pt;"]<span style="font-size: 7pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]You can make a really, really sharp EF-S lens, and in terms of getting the most image for your money combined with relatively small size for a given f/X.X, the EF-S lenses with a crop sensor makes a whole lot of sense. However, being able to accommodate a larger sensor means that the blur ofany EF lens will be proportionally less on a full frame sensor. I've only bought EF lenses for myself, even when I was using 1.6 FOVCF lenses, because I knew that I wanted to eventually go full frame. But, for the money spent, if the target is a camera with a 1.6 FOVCF sensor size, EF-S lenses become more sensible.<o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin-left: 4.8pt; margin-right: 4.8pt;"]<span style="font-size: 7pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]I still use my 30D with my EF telephoto lensesif I know that I&rsquo;d be cropping anyway if I used my 5D. I simply get more pixel density. Or, if I'm getting stuff where the higher FPS rate is needed... From a theoretical standpoint, designing a lens to accommodate a sensor that's bigger than what it's going to be used for is wasteful, expensive, and overly heavy. Still, it can work wonderfully, and maybe the over-implementation of glass can still have benefits, like less corner vignetting. <o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin-left: 4.8pt; margin-right: 4.8pt;"]<span style="font-size: 7pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]But using a lens that was designed to take advantages of the more modest requirements of a smaller sensor, and putting it on a larger sensor, that's pretty much impossible.