17-55 f/2.8 IS or 24-105 f/4L IS

Hi everybody,





Im really hesitating between these 2 lenses, and can't make a choice !


What you should know :


- I have a 10-22mm canon,a 70-200mm f/4 L canon, a 18-135mm IS, a 100mm macro usm


- I plan to sell the 18-135mm which is not enough good, but i discovered the IS thanks to it, and for me who really hate the tripod, its really pleasant


- I was thinking to take the 17-55 and loosing the extended range that the 24-105 offered me or to take the 24-105 with the extender 1.4x and sell back my 70-200 and also buy a 50mm 1.8 to have a good and cheap lense for indoor photography.








Well im just lost, and would like to know what you would do ?


(the 24-70 is not an option for me bcause it doesnt offer a better image quality than the 24-105 and i would prefer to have a 50mm 1.8 for indoor photography)





Thanks

Assuming you aren't planning on upgrading to a full-frame sensor in the near future, I'd say keep the 70-200 f/4 and get the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Everyone on the forums here knows how fond I am of that lens. I think it's the most useful general purpose lens on a crop sensor body. It isn't perfect--but it seems much more time on my main camera than any other lens I own. By getting the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (and selling the 18-135), the only thing your losing is a bit of focal length range between 55-70mm, and IS beyond 55mm. In my opinion, the extra stop on the lower end is worth the trade off.

First off, both lenses are very nice! I replaced my old Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 (non-OS) with the EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM. I love that lens! However, I found that f/4 just wasn't really cutting it... so I sold that, and use the grand I got to buy the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM that I have now. It's a VERY nice lens. Yes, much less range, but the sharpness, speed, bokeh etc... is very worth it. It uses many of the same components of L lenses, but just not enough to be an "L" (and it's not a full-frame lens). I'd love to know what camera you are using. I have a 50D and 7D. My girlfriend has the 18-135mm and uses it on her T1i with decent results. When paired with my 7D (she did an event with that combo while I was using my 50D) the 18-135 took amazing photos! I still think selling it would be a wise choice though, as it's slow and the build quality isn't very good. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, in my opinion, is what you should go with. The EF 50mm f/1.8 is a nice lens too... but if you can spring for the f/1.4, ($370 vs $110) I think you'll find it's worth it. I used to have the 1.8, gave it to my gf and bought the 1.4, and am much happier.


That's my two cents!





- Jordan


www.freshphotohawaii.com

Oh, also... (forgot to mention, and so did Sean) that the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM lens is NOT compatible with the 1.4x extender, not to mention it would be extremely slow and poor IQ if it was possible. Just FYI.

You can't really go wrong with any of both lenses, but I would buy the 17-55 if I wasn't planning on upgrading to full-frame anywhere soon.


It's a great lens, I personally think it's the best general lens on a crop-body. The IS and f2.8 combo is also really good, I don't use a tripod that often too [;)]


And yes an additional 50mm prime is great. The 1.4 version is a step up, also take a look at the Sigma's [;)](Have to promote that lens guys[A]) Although personally 50mm was too long for me on a crop-body.


Good luck!


Jan

Welcome to the TDP forums!


I'll cast another vote for the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Personally, I have both that lens and theEF 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: red;"]LIS USM. I use the 24-105mm as my outdoor walkaround lens in inclement weather (on a 7D, which isweather-sealed like the 24-105mm, whereas the 17-55mm is not). But the 17-55mm is more versatile - 24mm is just not wide enough in many situations, and although you have the 10-22mm (as do I), it's not always convenient to switch.


If I had to keep one of the two, it would be the 17-55mm. For travel, the 17-55mm + a 70-200mm L zoom is a great combo.


As others have stated, you cannot use the Canon 1.4x extender with the 24-105mm lens (of your current lenses it works only with the 70-200mm f/4L). While you might be able to use a 3rd party extender, the resulting f/5.6 zoom would perform worse than your 18-135mm.


Regarding the 50mm f/1.8, it's a nice little lens, with a cheap feel. The f/1.8 aperture will help indoors, certainly, but to be honest you may get better results with the 17-55mm f/2.8 combined with flash. Avoid the pop-up flash like the plague (except perhaps for moderate fill-flash outdoors), but an external Speedlite flash bounced off the ceiling can give very good results - for that, I'd recommend the 430EX II. That one (but not the cheaper 270EX) will really help out with low-light focusing (something the 50mm f/1.8 can struggle with).


Good luck with your decision!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

Assuming you aren't planning on upgrading to a full-frame sensor in the near future, I'd say keep the 70-200 f/4 and get the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

---

I would say the same thing, given the same assumption. You get an extra stop, wider angle, and better IQ. IMO that is worth the lost reach, esp if you have a 70-200.

Hi guys, I just got a second hand 17-55, took some shoots indoor, can't say it's sharper than my cheap 50mm f/1.8 so I wan't too impressed yet. The thing that bothers me most is the AF, it kind of wiggles/vibrates the lens at the longest when AF is working. Is it normal for this lens?

I can't speak to the wiggling af, but I don't think you should be too disappointed if the 17-55 isn't sharper than the 50 f/1.8. You're comparing a zoom to a sharp (though cheap) prime.

Is the wiggling you are seeing perhaps the IS activating? It does take a little bit of getting used to, but it can be a life saver. The 17-55 is an awesome lens, either it or the 70-200 2.8 is on my camera almost all the time.