Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


The same old question, 17-55 vs 24-105 on crop sensor


12 Apr 2011 9:42PM
Sorry, I know this question has been asked so many times, but I'm on the verge of buying a new lens and wanted some opinion specific to my situation.

I current have a 40d.
I mainly take portraits.
I've got the money for a 17-55 IS 2.4, 24-70 2.4L or 24-105 4 L.
I'm currently using the 17-85 kit lens (not much) but more often than not a 50mm 1.4 prime - which is brilliant although restrictive.

And i don't know what to get. I've read so many opinions, forums, reviews etc. The 17-55 appears to be a great lens, better performer actually than the L lenses, but not a good build quality. One day I'd like to think i'd be able to afford a FF camera, so that's also there in the back of my mind. I desperately need wider angle than the 50mm offers, but worried than the limited focal length of the 17-55 will not be enough, and effective make my 50mm lens a bit redundant. I can always use a flash i guess for low light shots with f4 or resort to prime.


Has anybody got a 24-105 L on cropped sensor, and do you ever wish you had either of the other two lenses?

any other thoughts? i know it's been discussed to death, but it's a lot of cash and want to make right choice.

thanks,
sam

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Coleslaw e2
9 13.4k 28 Wales
12 Apr 2011 9:45PM
24-70
justin c e2
11 4.6k 36 England
12 Apr 2011 9:49PM

Quote:Has anybody got a 24-105 L on cropped sensor, and do you ever wish you had either of the other two lenses?


I find the 24-105mm an excellent lens on a cropped sensor or full frame camera. I also owned the 24-70mm f2.8.
Regarding image quality there was virtually nothing between them, with both lenses performing superbly.
I ended up selling the 24-70mm and keeping the 24-105mm because the extended focal range was of more use to me than the wider aperture of the 24-70mm. I've never regretted the decision.
You won't be disappointed with either of the above lenses.
miptog e2
9 3.5k 61 United Kingdom
12 Apr 2011 9:51PM

Quote:I'm currently using the 17-85 kit lens (not much) but more often than not a 50mm 1.4 prime


Why do you not use the 17-85 very much?

Would a 70-200 2.8 be a better long term option.
Coleslaw e2
9 13.4k 28 Wales
12 Apr 2011 9:53PM
Not really, Michael....LOL

Quote:I desperately need wider angle than the 50mm offers
miptog e2
9 3.5k 61 United Kingdom
12 Apr 2011 9:56PM
Is that not already there with the 17-85 kit?
Coleslaw e2
9 13.4k 28 Wales
12 Apr 2011 9:58PM
I guess Sam wanted to upgrade to better lens.
12 Apr 2011 10:07PM

Quote:Why do you not use the 17-85 very much?


Get much better results with 50mm, notice such a difference in IQ.


Quote:I guess Sam wanted to upgrade to better lens.


Exactly that. Whatever I get would replace the kit lens, seeing the difference between the lenses really puts me off even getting the kit lens out.

Thanks for all your comments.


Quote:I ended up selling the 24-70mm and keeping the 24-105mm because the extended focal range was of more use to me than the wider aperture of the 24-70mm


Justin made a good point and as it is going to replace the kit lens i'd want to cover to focal length so think that's the decider.

My wife, by mistake, bought me the 17-40 L, but took it back as at the time my decision was the 24-105 L but since reading about the 17-55 and 24-70 I've been torn.

I think taking it all into account, the best value lens for me is the 24-105, I just needed someone else to say it Smile

I can keep using the prime for low light/indoor/portraits and make use of the extra focal length with the 24-105. I lose the wide angle, but prob a good trade off for what i like to do.

thanks all - i hope this helps someone else in same dilemma.

sam
ianrobinson e2
5 1.2k 8 United Kingdom
12 Apr 2011 10:52PM
24-70 f2.8 either sigma or canon they are both very good lenses and actually by reviews done the sigma comes up slightly better than the canon from the reviews ive seen not sure how true this is but there you go.
But if it's portraits then you won't go wrong with the 24-70mm f2.8.
If you really want to spend some hard earned doe then the canon 70-200mm f2.8 l is usm lens is the mother of all lenses and awsome for portraits.

I have them both plus the 50mm prime f1.4 and i find i tend to leave the 24-70mm on my 7d the most as i like using this lens for both portrait and landscape, it's a really good all rounder.
ianrobinson e2
5 1.2k 8 United Kingdom
12 Apr 2011 10:58PM
and to note that f4 to f2.8 is quite a difference when working in darker places like churchs so hence why the 24-70mm f2.8 wins in my book.
johnnyboy114 e2
6 231 106 United Kingdom
13 Apr 2011 2:26PM
I have the 24-105 on a 7D and with the crop sensor, I like the longer focal length that gives. In every day use and studio use, its spot on, as I never get anywhere near the f4 maximum. But I do think that I could use the wider f2.8 on a 70-200 or a 24-70 sometimes as the low light is a touch restrictive inside, even at higher ISO's. So, I guess it very much depends on what you are shooting mainly......the image quality on all of them is pretty damn good to be fair, so its whatever you feel is going to be the most useful. I am happy with it, defintely and if I can eventually afford the 70-200, I am keeping the 24-105 as a studio lens as its more than good enough for that.
13 Apr 2011 3:20PM
Facing exactly the same problem, I went with the 17-55. Never had a problem with build quality - it's fine. IQ is outstanding and I get the twin benefits of f2.8 and very good IS - I have handheld in St Peters, Vatican at 1/4s and had some really sharp results with that lens - its that good.

The only 'downside' is the EF-S designation - personally I have no plans to go FF, but the resale value is very strong anyway. I already had a 70-200 so the zoom range benefits of the 24-105 didn't stack up for me against losing the wide end. YMMV!
Coleslaw e2
9 13.4k 28 Wales
13 Apr 2011 3:21PM
Personally, 17-55 is a bit of a strange range, neither here nor there.
19 Apr 2011 2:10PM

Quote:Personally, 17-55 is a bit of a strange range, neither here nor there.


17-55 x 1.6 (crop factor) = 27-88 aimed roughly at the 24-70 FOV on a FF. That's my guess. Given that the standard entry level kit zoom range on most manufacturers is 18-55, I'm guessing that it is for a reason.

Personally I find the 17mm end wide enough not to bother with a WA, and if I want longer than 55mm I go to a 70-200 or 120-400. My personal rule of thumb is that a zoom of greater than 3x is likely (not guaranteed of course) to start to be of lower IQ than a zoom of 3x or less. Individual cases may vary.
20 Apr 2011 9:11AM
I've got the 24-105 on a 40D, brilliant combination and stunning pictures, and with the 24mm don't get the distortion at the wide end

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.