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

[FastGass]

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.

[bigblue1ca]

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.

[neuroanatomist]

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

[Rocco]

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

[Sheiky]

Good to know 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:

Weathersealing ain't that bad by Jan Paalman, on Flickr

[Scott Stephen]

Good to know 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:

Weathersealing ain't that bad by Jan Paalman, on Flickr

Ha! Apparently this kid is a Nikon fan.