Opinions: Ditch my 24-105 f/4 L for what? + poll

[Jordan]

Okay, can someone help me to think here? I bought a 24-105 f/4 L IS USM out of a kit from a local dealer about three months ago for $900. That was a GREAT deal considering it was new. I have used the lens a lot, but I'm starting to realize that the image clarity isn't up to par with what I want in my photography. It's very versatile and makes a great vacation lens, or a great single lens, but I want SHARPNESS and SPEED.... weddings, events, portraits etc... I don't use it for that.


Do you think I should sell it (I have a buyer for $900 so I won't be taking a loss on it at all) and turn around and get an EF 24-70 f/2.8 L, EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM (what I'm thinking I should do), or just keep the money until something nice comes out (I hear Canon is making a big announcement soon).


My current other lenses are EF 50 f/1.4, EF-S 60 2.8 Macro, EF 70-200 2.8 IS, Tokina 10-17mm fisheye. As you can see, I don't really have an "all-purpose" lens besides the 24-105 f/4 L. Keep in mind I have two cropped bodies (7D and 50D) and though it's always great to plan for the future, don't plan on upgrading to FF soon (MAYBE the 1DMKIV which may as well be FF for this point) Should I keep it or turn around and buy a faster one with less focal length? PLEASE HELP ME MAKE MY DECISION! I'll spend FOREVER deciding and maybe I'm over-looking some great points!


- Jordan


www.freshphotohawaii.com

[Sean Setters]

I voted for the 17-55 simply because I have it and love it. If I could only have one lens, that would be it. It isn't perfect, but it is certainly the most versatile tool in my bag.

[Jordan]

Thanks Sean! Yeah that's what I'm leaning toward. I rented it two days ago (first time I'd ever used it) and I'm taking it back in a couple hours... I didn't get a ton of shots with it, but I can see it's VERY sharp and with the 2.8 AND IS.... it's nice. 2.8 OR IS is good but this has both!


The one thing I DON'T like about it is the build quality. It definitely doesn't feel very L-ish... even though I know it is basically L inside. Plus it's about the same price as what I'd sell the other for... so it's like even exchange. I also like how wide 17 is! I haven't used a non-wide-only lens wider than 24 in a long time... since my 18-55 kit lens in fact!

[Brendan7]

The next big announcement, if I remember correctly, is in very early February. At least wait until then; if nothing groundbreaking is released, get the 17-55. If a 24-70 with IS is announced get that whatever the cost IMHO.





brendan

[Jordan]

EXACTLY Dude! I keep saying, an EF 24-70 2.8 L-series with IS would be KILLER! (thought something a little wider would be great) I would almost certainly get that if it was announced, but I'm not expecting it to be. We shall see! Yeah I think if I sell it today I just will pocket the 900 until the announcement and go with the 17-55 if nothing..... sheesh EXACTLY what you said... haha...


I'd still like to get more opinions though! I'm looking for someone who can come with some crazy reason to do something I didn't think of... sometimes it just takes the right perspective to go "Ohhh.... .good idea!" you know?


wow... I think I sound drunk. I promise I'm not! Just tired!

[Daniel Browning]

I have used the lens a lot, but I'm starting to realize that the image clarity isn't up to par with what I want in my photography.

Wow, you have very high standards! That's a good thing, of course. [] The 24-105 is pretty sharp. But there are a lot of lenses out there that are even sharper, so you do have some choices.

Should I keep it or turn around and buy a faster one with less focal length?

Based on what you've said, I think you definitely should.

I want SHARPNESS and SPEED

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is pretty much the only Canon choice that meets these qualifications. the 24-70 f/2.8 is definitely sharper than the 24-105 if you compare them both at f/4, but they both lose out to the 17-55.


If you want to consider some alternatives, I'd recommend the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 first. I think Sigma has poorer quality control. The Tamron is less than half the price of the 17-55, but the image quality is very close. The worst problem it has is field curvature, which is why the test chart looks poor in the corners at 17mm. (In real life, you wont notice this problem as much because subjects are not usually perfectly flat). I really like this lens and whenever I'm not on full frame this is what I'm using. (I'll probably keep it indefinitely -- unless I can afford to upgrade my backup body to full frame some day.) Unfortunately, the autofocus is loud and annoying and does not have full time manual. There is a newer VC version, but it's not quite as sharp.


In short, I advise the 17-55.

[clemmb]

I have used the lens a lot, but I'm starting to realize that the image clarity isn't up to par with what I want in my photography.

Wow, you have very high standards!
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Or a bad copy.


I agree another lens may be right for you but I have two of these lenses and find them to be sharp.


Mark

[digital808]

Wassup Jordan! I too have a dilemma. I need to find another lens to
compliment my 70-200 f2.8 IS. I was leaning towards the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8.. I was looking into the 24-105 f/4. The only down side to the EF-S is that for the price......it's not an "L" lens. Let me know what you decide. If you decide to get the 17-55........let us know how it is!

[Keith B]

My experience with the 24-105 and 24-70 showed the 24-105 to be slightly sharper in the center but the 24-70 is much sharper in the corners and handles CA way better on the outer portions of the frame.


Crop users will probably say the 24-105 is superior, but FF users will probably prefer the edge to edge sharpness and better controlled CA.

[Jordan]

WEll digital,


The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is practically an L-series lens... it's just not given to title, presumably due to the fact that it's EF-S and there are no EF-S L lenses. It has many of the L parts on the inside. It doesn't feel quite as solid of a build as the L, but other than that and the red ring, it basically is. Optically it's GORGEOUS! I rented it the other day and WOW... I really think I'm getting it. I just sold my EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM last night and am happy because that will go toward the 17-55. I also have a 70-200 2.8 IS and I think between those two... most everything is covered. I also have a 60mm Macro, the 50 1.4, and two ultra wide angles... a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (which will arrive today) and a Tokina 10-17mm fisheye. Between those, and my other lenses... I think I'm covered!