Keep Canon 17-85 or replace with...

[Derek Reese]

I need some advice on a good walk-around lens. Currently, I have the EF-S 17-85mm f/4.5-5.6 USM lens for this purpose but am wondering if another lens will provide a noticeable improvement. Specifically, I'm looking at the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM, EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM, and EF 24-105mm f/4 L USM. My main body is a 50D with a 350D for backup. I have the following lenses:


EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
EF-S 17-85mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM


Generally, the 17-85 has provided good results for me. I tend to not go below 24mm with this lens because of the severe barrel distortion. Sometimes I feel the lens isn't as sharp as I would like and it is relatively slow at f/4.5-5.6 -- although this isn't a terribly big deal since 17-85 is generally used outdoors.


So, will I see a real-world difference over my current EF-S 17-85 with any of these three lenses? If so, which would be my best choice given the lenses I have? Or should I stick with my current 17-85?

[alexniedra]

Hey Derek - Welcome to the forum!


I can say that both lenses will impress you. I would look at it in terms of the future. Do you plan to ultimately upgrade to full frame? If so, I would consider the 24-70 L for you. It is an absolutely fantastic lens in every way. Except for price - That's why you can sell the 17-85 in the Buy/Sell forum [:)]


If you don't plan to go full frame, take a look at that 17-55 - Also a great lens, with IS, which will help significantly in certain situations. However, I don't suggest turning down the 24-70 L just beceause it doesn't have IS. IS is believed to be less necessary at the shorter focal lengths. Again, it's all about your need - And since you're frequently outdoors, I don't see IS as a feature that will make or break your choice.



Anyway, I hope I have provided you with some useful insight.


- Alex

[Derek Reese]

Thanks Alex. I don't know if I will go full frame at some point, but I'd like to. So that does make me hesitant to get another EF-S lens. How is the 24-105 compared to the 24-70? Very similar image quality? I like the speed of the 24-70, but then the range of the 24-105 is nice, although I do have >70mm covered right now. Since this lens will primarily be used outdoors, I don't know if the f/2.8 of the 24-70 will be that big of an advantage.

[Todd Ovick]

Derek, I use a 350D and a 5D. I purchased the 24-105L while using my 350D and noticed an extreme improvement in image quality. I then purchased a 5D and I love the 24-105L combination with that as well. Since then I have had "L lense fever" and do not use EFS lens'. Since you are needing a great walk around lens for outdoor use, I would suggest the 24-105L.

[Derek Reese]

Do you have any issues with barrel distortion or pincusion with the 24-105? According to the review here there is some on the 24-105. Is it very noticeable? It is VERY apparent on the 17-85 below 24mm to the point where I don't use the 17-85 below 24mm anymore.

[Todd Ovick]

Derek, Ther is a small amout of barrel distortion on my 5d (full framer) at 24mm, but if your using a 50D with a 1.6 crop you should not notice it. At least I did not notice it on my 350D.

[Derek Reese]

So optically, are the 24-70 and 24-105 equivalent (image quality-wise)? Or is one sharper than the other? If they are equal then I thnk I might lean more towards the 24-105 because of the reach (less lens changes). I like the f/2.8 on the 24-70, but I don't think I'll need that very often because indoors I generally use the 35 f/1.4 L and 85 f/1.8.

[Sean Setters]

Darek, I own the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and absolutely love it. I also own the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS, but the 17-55 stays on my 50D about 90% of the time. It really is a fantastic lens. On a crop body, I don't think there's a better general purpose lens. However, if you think you'll upgrade to a full-frame camera in the near future, then definitely go with the 24-105mm f/4 L IS or the 24-70mm f/2.8 L. That said, if you think you'll hold on to your 50D for a while, get the 17-55. When you do upgrade to a full-framer, the 17-55 should hold its value fairly well when you need to sell it. As far as image quality is concerned, it's an "L" lens without the ring.

[Todd Ovick]

Derek, I have never used the 24-70L. I cannot comment on overall sharpess. I used my 24-105L at an outdoor wedding last fall and it was exceptionally versitile and images were very sharp, especially stopped down 1x. Any noticeable sharpening that i need i would do in post. You can't beat the extra focal length. I will always keep my 24-105L unless there is a new release of an f/2.8 version...then I would need to see some reviews on that one.

[Colin]

24-105 as well, though you know, I went back and forth between 70-105mm, and it didn't seem like a really huge difference. It is nice tohave.


One of the things I really like, though, is that for a serious full frame zoom, it's relatively small and stealthy.

[Benjamin]

EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
EF-S 17-85mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





What a fantastic kit!


I think in such a case you may want to look at the 24-70L if F2.8 is valuable to you. I updated my 17-85 with it and I cannot be happier. The image quality is superb and range is perfect for head&amp;shoulder portrait with a 50D. Bokeh is creamy too. If you have the 10-22 then I wonder if the 17-55/2.8 will still be worth it as both of the lenses cover the wide angle range. If you have hard time looking through your 17-85 below 24mm, the 24-105 @ 24mm on FF is no better. The 24-70 is considerably better in terms of distortion at both ends.


Personally, I would add a 50/1.4 to your kit and forget about zooms.[:)]

[Derek Reese]

Man, you guys are making this a tougher decision than it already was![:D] Seriously, though, I really am soaking up all these comments and really do appreciate them all. It's just such a tough decision between the 24-70 and 24-105! I'm 99% sure now I don't want to go the EF-S route with the 17-55. Undoubtedly a fantastic lens, but since I've got up to 22mm covered with the 10-22, the 17-55 would really only net me 24-55 and leave a gap from 55-70.


I love the range on the 24-105. But the potential distortion makes me nervous. Benjamin, the distortion you notice on FF is it noticeable on your 50D? I suppose the 24-70 would fit nicely between my 10-22 and 70-200. But then I'm looking at potentially more frequent lens changes.


f/2.8: Is that really the only advantage of the 24-70 over the 24-105? Other than that, image quality-wise, is there a significant difference between the two? For what I'll use this lens for, I don't think f/2.8 vs f/4 will make a difference.

[Benjamin]

I don't have a 24-105L in hand now but as I remember, the 24-105 still come worse than the 24-70 on cropped bodies, so yes, likely you will notice distortion since I see slight distortion on my 24-70L through the 50D. Frankly, I have not bee touching a 24-105L lens for years, my short experience with it was back in 2006... You can easily check it out at a camera store, and that way you will be convinced.


Yes, you can say that. F2.8 is just about the only advantage remaining for the 24-70L apart from the distortion. In fact, I think the f2.8 is the only valuable thing to me as I shoot a lot of portrait and indoor stuff. Distortion is something that can be easily corrected by software, but creamier bokeh cannot be simulated at all. Both lenses have similar sharpness and contrast, see Bryan's review and the testing charts. I would say if you don't need a F2.8 (you probably don't since you have the primes[:)]), go for the 24-105L. It's a nice walk-around lens overall, plus, IS will help a lot as I know how tough life can become with my non-IS 24-70.


PS: Bryan seems to like the 24-105L a lot.

[Daniel Browning]

For what I'll use this lens for, I don't think f/2.8 vs f/4 will make a difference.


In that case it sounds like the 24-105 f/4 L IS would be the best choice for you. There are some photographers (e.g. Thom Hogan) that don't really use "normal" zooms (17-50), but prefer to go right from ultra wide (10-22) to telephoto (44-125). I'm similar to that: I like to shoot the crop equivalent of 15mm, 31mm, and 44-125, so I, too, don't use a "normal" zoom. I think you might fall into the same category, since you're planning 10-22 and 24-105 on a crop.


I think you will really like that combination. If you upgrade to full frame in the future, you'll find that there is no equivalent to the 24-105 (it would have to be 38-170 in order to match the angle of view of the 24-105 on a crop.), so you'll have to change your style and use different angles of view. (Other lenses, like the 17-55, 17-85, and 10-22 do have equivalent full frame lenses.)


By the way, you might also consider an automatic software solution to the distortion problem. I find that DxO Optics Pro is very good at removing distortion (and other lens aberrations) automatically. PTLens is another option.

[peety3]

I started with a 24-105/4IS. I've added a 16-35/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8IS. I shoot with a 1D Mark III.


I've rented the 24-70/2.8.


My current thoughts and advice are quite simple: 24-105 is great if it's your only lens - it gets the shots you want. If you have "other lenses" (at least a telephoto, preferably also a wide), the 24-70 is the better choice in my opinion. Less distortion, optically better, thinner DoF if you want it.


Next chance I get, I'm buying the 24-70, and my girlfriend gets the 24-105 to "replace" her 28-135. I don't regret buying the 24-105, and I'd trade for the 24-70 now if I didn't have a "waiting consumer". (We did several large event gigs recently, and had the 10-22, 24-105, and 70-200/4IS, with three bodies that unfortunately didn't match. She loved the lens combo a lot.)

[Derek Reese]

Well, I pulled the trigger on a 24-70 tonight. I struggled with the decision between the 24-70 and 24-105 for my walkaround. But in the end, for me, I don't think the extra range from 70-105 is worth losing f/2.8. I analyzed the focal length usage of my pictures shot with my 17-85, and only about 2% of my shots werefrom71-85. And since I have the 70-200 f/4 L, I still have that covered.


Can't wait 'til this baby arrives and I can try it out! [8-|]

[jasbsar]

Now you will want the 70-200mm f2.8 IS next.

[Derek Reese]

That's funny you say that! I do have the 70-200L f/4, but was thinking maybe I should trade up to the 2.8. Probably won't happen anytime soon as I've been on a lens buying spree lately (the 35L, 10-22, and now 24-70L all in the last couple months).

[Derek Reese]

Received my 24-70 today. That thing isa BEAST! And I mean that in a good way. I had limited time to try it out tonight, but so far it's great.