17-55 f/2.8 IS or 24-105 f/4L IS

[Blu3sky]

Hi everybody,





Im really hesitating between these 2 lenses, and can't make a choice !


What you should know :


- I have a 10-22mm canon,a 70-200mm f/4 L canon, a 18-135mm IS, a 100mm macro usm


- I plan to sell the 18-135mm which is not enough good, but i discovered the IS thanks to it, and for me who really hate the tripod, its really pleasant


- I was thinking to take the 17-55 and loosing the extended range that the 24-105 offered me or to take the 24-105 with the extender 1.4x and sell back my 70-200 and also buy a 50mm 1.8 to have a good and cheap lense for indoor photography.








Well im just lost, and would like to know what you would do ?


(the 24-70 is not an option for me bcause it doesnt offer a better image quality than the 24-105 and i would prefer to have a 50mm 1.8 for indoor photography)





Thanks

[Sean Setters]

Assuming you aren't planning on upgrading to a full-frame sensor in the near future, I'd say keep the 70-200 f/4 and get the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Everyone on the forums here knows how fond I am of that lens. I think it's the most useful general purpose lens on a crop sensor body. It isn't perfect--but it seems much more time on my main camera than any other lens I own. By getting the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (and selling the 18-135), the only thing your losing is a bit of focal length range between 55-70mm, and IS beyond 55mm. In my opinion, the extra stop on the lower end is worth the trade off.

[Jordan]

First off, both lenses are very nice! I replaced my old Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 (non-OS) with the EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM. I love that lens! However, I found that f/4 just wasn't really cutting it... so I sold that, and use the grand I got to buy the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM that I have now. It's a VERY nice lens. Yes, much less range, but the sharpness, speed, bokeh etc... is very worth it. It uses many of the same components of L lenses, but just not enough to be an "L" (and it's not a full-frame lens). I'd love to know what camera you are using. I have a 50D and 7D. My girlfriend has the 18-135mm and uses it on her T1i with decent results. When paired with my 7D (she did an event with that combo while I was using my 50D) the 18-135 took amazing photos! I still think selling it would be a wise choice though, as it's slow and the build quality isn't very good. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, in my opinion, is what you should go with. The EF 50mm f/1.8 is a nice lens too... but if you can spring for the f/1.4, ($370 vs $110) I think you'll find it's worth it. I used to have the 1.8, gave it to my gf and bought the 1.4, and am much happier.


That's my two cents!





- Jordan


www.freshphotohawaii.com

[Jordan]

Oh, also... (forgot to mention, and so did Sean) that the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM lens is NOT compatible with the 1.4x extender, not to mention it would be extremely slow and poor IQ if it was possible. Just FYI.

[Sheiky]

You can't really go wrong with any of both lenses, but I would buy the 17-55 if I wasn't planning on upgrading to full-frame anywhere soon.


It's a great lens, I personally think it's the best general lens on a crop-body. The IS and f2.8 combo is also really good, I don't use a tripod that often too []


And yes an additional 50mm prime is great. The 1.4 version is a step up, also take a look at the Sigma's [](Have to promote that lens guys[A]) Although personally 50mm was too long for me on a crop-body.


Good luck!


Jan

[neuroanatomist]

Welcome to the TDP forums!


I'll cast another vote for the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Personally, I have both that lens and theEF 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: red;"]LIS USM. I use the 24-105mm as my outdoor walkaround lens in inclement weather (on a 7D, which isweather-sealed like the 24-105mm, whereas the 17-55mm is not). But the 17-55mm is more versatile - 24mm is just not wide enough in many situations, and although you have the 10-22mm (as do I), it's not always convenient to switch.


If I had to keep one of the two, it would be the 17-55mm. For travel, the 17-55mm + a 70-200mm L zoom is a great combo.


As others have stated, you cannot use the Canon 1.4x extender with the 24-105mm lens (of your current lenses it works only with the 70-200mm f/4L). While you might be able to use a 3rd party extender, the resulting f/5.6 zoom would perform worse than your 18-135mm.


Regarding the 50mm f/1.8, it's a nice little lens, with a cheap feel. The f/1.8 aperture will help indoors, certainly, but to be honest you may get better results with the 17-55mm f/2.8 combined with flash. Avoid the pop-up flash like the plague (except perhaps for moderate fill-flash outdoors), but an external Speedlite flash bounced off the ceiling can give very good results - for that, I'd recommend the 430EX II. That one (but not the cheaper 270EX) will really help out with low-light focusing (something the 50mm f/1.8 can struggle with).


Good luck with your decision!

[Jon Ruyle]

Assuming you aren't planning on upgrading to a full-frame sensor in the near future, I'd say keep the 70-200 f/4 and get the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

I would say the same thing, given the same assumption. You get an extra stop, wider angle, and better IQ. IMO that is worth the lost reach, esp if you have a 70-200.

[darklord]

Hi guys, I just got a second hand 17-55, took some shoots indoor, can't say it's sharper than my cheap 50mm f/1.8 so I wan't too impressed yet. The thing that bothers me most is the AF, it kind of wiggles/vibrates the lens at the longest when AF is working. Is it normal for this lens?

[Jon Ruyle]

I can't speak to the wiggling af, but I don't think you should be too disappointed if the 17-55 isn't sharper than the 50 f/1.8. You're comparing a zoom to a sharp (though cheap) prime.

[interactii]

Is the wiggling you are seeing perhaps the IS activating? It does take a little bit of getting used to, but it can be a life saver. The 17-55 is an awesome lens, either it or the 70-200 2.8 is on my camera almost all the time.