Need help picking the right lens for trip to Europe

[Brendan7]

and a google search for "Canon 24-105mm dust" pulls up plenty of hits.

"EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM dust issues" pulls up 12,000 results on my browser.


"EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM dust issues" pulls up 610 results on my browser.


Most of the hits for the 24-105 dust issues are present when it is noted that the 24-105 is dust and moisture resistant.However, the 17-55mm is known to have mechanical issues that don't end with dust and for something that costs $1000 that is inexcusable IMO (just like the Sigma lenses that don't AF). It has a higher failiure rate at lensrentals.com than other lenses -- I know you said that's not the way to judge a lens, but heck, the other lenses aren't failing!


I know the 17-55mm is a very good lens, but I wouldn't buy myself one. I try to convince myself to but can't.


my 2¢

[neuroanatomist]

"EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM dust issues" pulls up 12,000 results on my browser.


"EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM dust issues" pulls up 610 results on my browser.

Wow - what search engine are you using? Bing-o? [:P]


I get ~5,200 and ~3,700 respectively in Google (I added the -S to the 17-55mm) for the same search terms (without the quotes).


Nevertheless, you're absolutely correct in that many people have apparently had dust issues with the 17-55mm, and the 100-400mm, and the 28-135mm, and many other lenses, moreso than with the 'weather-sealed' L-lenses, on average.

the 24-105 isdust and moistureresistant.

Yes, it is. Resistant ≠ impervious. It's a zoom lens. The barrel extends and retracts, changing the internal volume of the lens. Therefore air must move in and out of the lens, unless someone changed the laws of physics when I wasn't looking. Air contains dust. Moving air moves dust. Moving air into the lens can move dust into the lens, and that dust may settle there. It doesn't really matter if it's a 100-400mm push-pull zoom or a 'weather-sealed' 50L with the only the focus elements moving. I've run across reports of dust in the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS - that's a 'dust and moisture resistant' lens with completely internal focusing - but air (and apparently dust) can still get in.


Regardless, I think you may be unfairly judging an excellent lens, which Bryan calls, "...one of the best general purpose lenses available." If mine was filling up with dust, I'd certainly feel differently! Obviously, choosing a lens is a personal decision, and if you don't want one, don't buy one! I've read a number of POTN and FM posts from people who indicate that lens is their sole reason for keeping a 1.6x body. I'll keep my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, thanks.


But then again, I like my EF 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: red;"]L a lot, too - especially when I'm going out in the rain. [] (In fact, a couple of days ago I was shooting pics with the 17-55mm of my daughter running around the yard when I felt the first few drops of what became a nice, cooling rain shower on an 80&deg; day. She wanted to stay out and play in the rain - how come we grown-ups forget how fun it is to jump in puddles?? - so I ducked inside to swap on the 24-105mm, then went out and kept right on shooting.)


Thanks also, Brendan, for your suggestion of 24-105mm + a UWA - that combo vs. the 17-55mm will be a tough decision for an upcoming trip.

[Brendan7]

Wow - what search engine are you using? Bing-o? [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]

Yahoo.

Yes, it is. Resistant &ne; impervious. It's a zoom lens.

true.

Regardless, I think you may be unfairly judging an excellent lens, which Bryan calls, "...one of the best general purpose lenses available."

quite possible.

Thanks also, Brendan, for your suggestion of 24-105mm + a UWA - that combo vs. the 17-55mm will be a tough decision for an upcoming trip.

I'd say the advantage of the 17-55 is indoors, and the 24-105mm is outdoors. It depends on where you shoot IMO.


brendan

[neuroanatomist]

I'd say the advantage of the 17-55 is indoors, and the 24-105mm is outdoors. It depends on where you shoot IMO.

I agree with that in general - and currently, that's mostly my usage pattern. That's for family-type shots, though - indoors, walls often preclude backing up for the full scene, and outdoors for people shots it's usually easy to back up a step or three to frame with 24mm on a crop body. But for many indoor shots, I'm finding that the 24-105mm with a Speedlite works well, too.


The only place that 24mm doesn't work is scenic shots/landscapes, where the subject is sufficiently distant that sneaker-zoom is not feasible. That's where having something wider is needed outdoors - 17mm is usually enough, but 10mm is really nice sometimes!