I'm trying to choose one lens for now, 17-55, 24-105

I posted a thread last week regarding the 24-105; it's on it's way for me to test. However, I'm wondering if I need to decide if I want a great outdoor lens with some decent focal length for landscapes/skyscapes or if I want a lens made for low light, indoor shots.

I have the Canon EF-S 10-22, 28-135 (which is what I need to replace as my wife is getting this), 50 1.8, 70-300 non L. I don't plan to get a FF body in the future.

Here's my pros and cons so far

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

Pros	Cons
f/2.8 great for indoor photos/portraits Many excellent reviews on this lenses sharp photos	Focal range overlaps the Canon 10-22 lens that I own Focal range on the long end is fairly short for some of my landscape shots, primarily sunrise/sets

Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM AF

Pros	Cons
L glass Good focal range for landscapes, sunsets, etc Good replacement of the 28-135 that I own now	f/4 which is fine for outdoor photos but not for indoor portraits I could use the 50 1.8 for that but it lacks zoom

Mods: If this should be merged with my other thread, please do so.

I'm looking for advice and suggestions, etc. Thank you,

Two more Pro's for the 24-105:
- Build Quality
- Weathersealing. Might not be important now, but you say you might want to upgrade to a 60D/7D later on and weathersealing might be nice then.

Another Con for the 24-105mm, the F/4 aperture doesn't let your camera use the high precision AF system. The f/5.6 AF points are accurate to somewhere within the DOF, while the f/2.8 AF points are accurate to within 1/3 of the DOF... and I guess that's 1/3 of the narrower DOF, so even more precise than the immediate implication.

I wouldn't worry too much about a bit of focal length overlap. Indoors you'll might often switch between longer lengths for portraits, and wide lengths for groups, or to include context. It would be painful to switch lenses every time you were taking a slightly different shot.

That's a good point David. In theory it is true. In practice I never noticed a worse AF when I upgraded from a 50D+17-55 to a 5D2 with 24-105. It was more improved if anything else.
But still in theory you've got a solid point there.

I own the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. While the two do overlap a bit in focal range, where they overlap you'll want to use the 17-55. It's simply a better lens from 17-22 than the 10-22 is. Otherwise, the 10-22 is great when you need something wider than 17mm on a crop sensor.

Is there any reason you're not considering the 24-70mm f/2.8 L Mk I? It seems like it should be on the possibilities list.

Sean, I skipped that lens due to it not having IS builtin; I thought for certain situations on the long end the IS would be helpful. Is that not the case? Also, read about people complaing that they have a "soft copy" of the lens... what is that nonsense?

I suppose these pros and cons could be applied to the 24-70:
Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM AF
Pros

* L glass
*Good focal range for landscapes, sunsets, etc
*Good replacement of the 28-135 that I own now

Cons

* f/4 which is fine for outdoor photos but not for indoor portraits
**I could use the 50 1.8 for that but it lacks zoom

Canon 24-70 2.8 I
Pros

*L Glass
*f/2.8 great for indoor photos/portraits

Cons

*Focal range on the long end is fairly short for some of my landscape shots, primarily sunrise/sets (coming from a 135, now choosing between a 105 and 70)
*Old lens, it's being replaced soon

I have the 24-105 f/4 IS. I don't have the Canon 17-55; I have the Tamron version, the 17-50 f/2.8 VC. That lens is also quite sharp and of course far cheaper than the Canon. Clearly the 24-105 is way more flexible for outdoor work and the loss of an f-stop isn't generally an issue.

I find that the 17-50 is a great lens for indoor work, especially for more intimate indoor situations and for indoors/daylight. But it's only OK for low light. After all, we are talking about an f/2.8. Sure you can push the shutter speed to 1/15 or 1/30. But these are probably people shots and 1/15 doesn't always work unless people are posing for you. So there are a lot of situations where I have to take up the slack by pushing the ISO and then cleaning up the noise later. So it has issues. The 17-55 is fine for daytime indoor work -- but the 24-105 will also handle that fairly well.

In true low-light situations, I've had much better luck with lenses that are built to handle low light -- that means an f-stop of 2.0 or less and that means a prime. But I wouldn't recommend your 50mm 1.8 for those intimate low light moments. With your crop camera, 50mm is a bit too big. I would go for a prime in the 28-32mm range.

My go-to lens in those situations is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. The lens is almost two full stops faster than a 2.8 and being a prime means it's sharper than just about any zoom you'll find. At 30mm its reach works well indoors. Plus it's relatively cheap. The bottom line is this type of lens gives you shots that can capture the mood with way less ISO.

Whether you go with the Sigma or a Canon prime in this range doesn't matter much. And it doesn't matter that these lenses aren't generally stabilized. Set the camera for 1/30, f/1.4 and go to town.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

Two more Pro's for the 24-105:
- Weathersealing. Might not be important now, but you say you might want to upgrade to a 60D/7D later on and weathersealing might be nice then.

---

Hi Sheiky

I was under the impression (happy to be corrected) that the only "Partially Weather Sealed" lenses were the post 1999 designed white lenses?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/N....aspx?News=996

The only "Partially Weather Sealed" body is the 1D series.

Photog82

Good luck with your selection, I have been facing the same decision now for 6 months and I still cannot make up my mind:(.

You put "L glass" under the pros for the 24-105, but I would not put it there. On a crop camera, the 17-55 is significantly better in contrast and resolution, so I'd argue that it is much more of "L glass" than the actual L lens. However, the 24-105 definitely has more of an "L build", even if it doesn't have L glass.

(The reason why 17-55 is so much sharper is that it only has to cover a small image circle and it can stop down a full stop., whereas the 24-105 covers a larger one. When you use the 24-105 on a full frame camera, that's where it really shines -- then it is going to put out better performance than 17-55 on crop.)

After renting the 24-105 and getting a good deal on the lens from a friend who ordered the 5D III kit, I went with the 24-105. So far, it's a great walk around lens.

I absolutely concur with Daniel, the 17-55mm is a much better in terms of sharpness and contrast. It is called the "hidden L" for 1.6 bodies. Some people such as yourself prefer the range of the 24-105mm on a crop body and I absolutely respect that, I just think people should be informed in there choice.

John.

I was just thinking about your initial concerns about the overlap between the 10-22 and the 17-55. I'm not sure if a week later it's still a concern, but I have the 10-22 and I find most of my shots are in the 10-14mm range (taking full advantage of the UWA), thus I find no issues with overlap with my 16-35 (migrating to FF shortly). YMMV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raid

Hi Sheiky

I was under the impression (happy to be corrected) that the only "Partially Weather Sealed" lenses were the post 1999 designed white lenses?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/N....aspx?News=996

The only "Partially Weather Sealed" body is the 1D series.

Photog82

Good luck with your selection, I have been facing the same decision now for 6 months and I still cannot make up my mind:(.

---

Hi Raid,

That news item (stemming from an email exchange I had with Chuck Westfall) applies only to lenses not officially designated as weather/dust resistant (the 24-105L is so-designated). You can identify sealed lenses by the rubber gasket at the lens mount, and lenses with that gasket also have sealed switches and zoom/focus rings. The point of the news item was that some lenses ( the pre-1999 white ones), which lack the mount gasket, do have sealing at the switches and zoom/focus rings (this isn't commonly known), and are thus partially sealed (as opposed to 'fully sealed').

Hope that clarifies...

John

Yup. John nailed it. My 400mm f/5.6L is only partially sealed.

Good to know :D I must say that weather-sealing for me proved to be more important than I'd ever imagined when I bought the lens. I've been out in a few rainy days, but more important I've had quite the amount of blowing sand and dust to my gear. In those occasions I felt a lot more secure with a weather-sealed lens on my camera. I have used the Sigma 50mm 1.4 in a sandy environment one time and there was sand all over the focus ring and it needed to be cleaned.
In some occasions I didn't even worry about my gear and could pay more attention to taken the photos, which is a great thing. Example of an unsuspected sand-blasting:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7042/6...2e4d6f16_z.jpg
Weathersealing ain't that bad :) by Jan Paalman, on Flickr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

Good to know :D I must say that weather-sealing for me proved to be more important than I'd ever imagined when I bought the lens. I've been out in a few rainy days, but more important I've had quite the amount of blowing sand and dust to my gear. In those occasions I felt a lot more secure with a weather-sealed lens on my camera. I have used the Sigma 50mm 1.4 in a sandy environment one time and there was sand all over the focus ring and it needed to be cleaned.
In some occasions I didn't even worry about my gear and could pay more attention to taken the photos, which is a great thing. Example of an unsuspected sand-blasting:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7042/6...2e4d6f16_z.jpg
Weathersealing ain't that bad :) by Jan Paalman, on Flickr

---

Ha! Apparently this kid is a Nikon fan.