Quote Originally Posted by bburns223
John, I do understand your philosophy of getting a fast zoom, but I'd rather buy the 24-105 for its build quality (yes, I do have L disease) and then get a 50 or 85mm prime for lowlight.

Makes sense, Brendan. The physical build quality of the 17-55mm is very good (quite similar to myEF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LMacro IS USM, in fact), but what it lacks, IMO, is the weather-sealing of the 24-105mm.


Quote Originally Posted by jnort002
Main reason I chose the 24-105 was the wider range of focal length for the cost of 1 stop. Compared to the 24-70 or 17-55 it reduces the number of times I would have to change for my 70-200 which on the fly is very useful.

This is a great point - I was out shooting my toddler hunting for Easter eggs a while ago, and changed from the 17-55mm on the deck to the 100mm lens in the back yard, and I didn't need the 17-24mm range, nor f/2.8. But for the early morning exploration of the Easter basket in the house, I definitely needed to be wider than 24mm.


So, I think the two lenses would serve different but complementary purposes (for me, at least). The 17-55mm makes an idealindoorgeneral purpose zoom lens, with the fast aperture and especially with the wider FOV (especially supplemented with my EF 85mm f/1.8 for ambient light close-ups). The 24-105mm would make an idealoutdoorgeneral purpose zoom lens (on a crop body), where you could part with a stop of light and you would have room to back up if necessary, and more need to zoom in.
<div>I got my 17-55mm last October, just when it started to get cold. Since much of the New England 'winter' (which is pretty long - late fall to late spring, sometimes!) is spent indoors, I wouldn't part with that lens. But, now that the weather is getting nicer and more time will be spent outdoors, this discussion is making me really want to add the 24-105mm f/4L to my kit!</div>
<div></div>