17-55mm f2.8 / 17-40mm f4L / 24-105mm f4L

MadFrankie

MadFrankie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
431
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
Right, I'm in the market for a new 'walkabout lens' and need your advice...

I have a 50D, and have been looking at the 17-55 as it's a EF-S so designed for my crop sensor but I just can't help but glance at the L lenses.

The 17-40 might be a bit short at the top length and is only f4 but seems to be one of everyones favourite lens.

The 24-105 has a great range and I can see it being pretty much the only lens I would need for most situations but is 24, (multiplied by 1.6 so 38), at the short end wide enough for landscapes? The 105 would reach for most occassions but is IS so the f4 would be ok...

I have the Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro USM and Nifty 50 for portraits and macro etc and a 70-200 for distance.

I like landscapes, portraits and general scenery / architecture photography...


Any help or guidance would be great:help:
 
17-55 without a doubt! Unless you have a 10-20 or similar for ultra-wide and don't mind regularly swapping between that and the 24-105?

The 17-55 was designed to be the walkabout lens on a crop sensor. The other two were really designed with full frame in mind!
 
Thought you might say that! I'm just reserved about spending £700 on a lens and it not have a red ring on ;)
 
17-55mm would be my recommendation too,don't forget to allow a few quid more for the hood

(And a red felt tip if you really must have the red ring around it)
 
MadFrankie said:
Thought you might say that! I'm just reserved about spending £700 on a lens and it not have a red ring on ;)
Click to expand...

Don't succumb to red ring snobbery - The 17-55 is an absolute beast on a crop sensor. It was on my camera about 90% of the time, it was fantastic. If I was using my crop for walkabout things, I would have one of these in a heartbeat and wouldn't even consider the others.
 
Do you have a current 'walk about lens' and if so what focal length are you generally using with it, this might help decide for you - if you are using the wide 17-20mm say a lot, then the 17-55 is the way to go, on the other hand if your around say 50-60mm, then poss the 24-105 is the way.

Hope this helps
 
I would go for the 17-55mm if I had the cash.
It's faster than the 17-40mm and give you more reach.
Don't worry about the missing red ring.
 
MadFrankie said:
Thought you might say that! I'm just reserved about spending £700 on a lens and it not have a red ring on ;)
Click to expand...

If it would fit a FF camera, it would have a red ring. Think of it like that :D

Or if you really can't shift the red-ring desires, sell the 100mm macro and the nifty fifty, and get yourself a 135L and some tubes, go on, you know you want to :naughty:
 
Last edited:
I have the 17-55 f2.8 one of the best lenses I have ever had.
Quite a weighty beast though.
Optically is is on a par with any L lens, though not as dust or as waterproof.
Though mine has spent many hours on building sites in most conditions with out any trouble.
 
Another vote for the 17-55 here. Used to have the 24-105, and sold it because F4 wasn't fast enough at times. Also used to have a 17-40, which makes quite a nice walkabout lens on a crop sensor, but the 17-55 has it covered, is faster and has IS.
 
Thanks guys, I was planning on the 17-55 so just needed the final push! And like Rich mentions, I can always use a red felt tip ;)

:notworthy::thankyou: as always to you all...

chris321 said:
If it would fit a FF camera, it would have a red ring. Think of it like that :D

Or if you really can't shift the red-ring desires, sell the 100mm macro and the nifty fifty, and get yourself a 135L and some tubes, go on, you know you want to :naughty:
Click to expand...

See, you've just opened the other debate in my mind, I love my 100mm macro but the 135L and tubes has gotten onto my radar again...

It's going to be an expensive month!
 
MadFrankie said:
See, you've just opened the other debate in my mind, I love my 100mm macro but the 135L and tubes has gotten onto my radar again...
Click to expand...

It's what I did :cool:

Very sad to let my 100mm macro go, but the 135mm more than made up for it. Chances are with a 17-55 you probably won't use the 50mm all that much!

And yes, when isn't it an expensive month :D
 
And another vote for the 17-55mm :)
 
I purchased a 17-55 f2.8 is a couple of weeks ago second hand from a shop in glasgow, but as i have a 24-70L it has taken about 10 shots!!

I have been trying to post it on here to sell, but I think the system probs are stopping me from starting a selling thread (have contacted Mods).

I am not wanting to make any money from it, just back what I paid £599.(plus £10 Postage)
Very sharp on my 7D.

Let me know

Cheers
J
 
i have the 24-70 and the 17-40 having used both on my 50D i would say you would miss the wide end if thw 24-105 became your walkabout.

i would go for the 17-55. it makes sence. the reason i dont have one is because i have ff camera as well.
 
17-55 is an awesome lens, only consideration is if you are planning on going FF eventually but nothing comes close to the range with IS
 
justinmoir said:
I purchased a 17-55 f2.8 is a couple of weeks ago second hand from a shop in glasgow, but as i have a 24-70L it has taken about 10 shots!!

I have been trying to post it on here to sell, but I think the system probs are stopping me from starting a selling thread (have contacted Mods).

I am not wanting to make any money from it, just back what I paid £599.(plus £10 Postage)
Very sharp on my 7D.

Let me know

Cheers
J
Click to expand...

Hi, could be interested in buying the 17-55 from you then but can you PM me when you get the post up on the selling thread and give me first refusal, (assuming thats ok with the rules). I'd need the obvious pictures and date code etc...

I love it when a plan comes together!
 
Last edited:
chris321 said:
17-55 without a doubt! Unless you have a 10-20 or similar for ultra-wide and don't mind regularly swapping between that and the 24-105?
Click to expand...

I have the 10-22 and 24-105 and having to regularly swap between them (24 on cropped sensor is not wide enough and not just for landscapes) is why I'm thinking of getting the 15-85. 17-55 sounds great but I want that extra reach of the 15-85.
 
I used to have the 17-40L but upgraded that to the 17-55 (Should have listened to HoppyUK as his advice was to go for the 17-55 but the 17-40 came to me at a very good price - half of what the 17-55 cost).
Both are nice sharp lenses but the 17-55 is obviously more versatile because of the f2.8 and IS.
Have you checked through your existing photos to see if you use the far end of this range (eg above 40mm) that often?
One thing to be said about the 17-40 is that it feels nice and solid.
 
ChrisJ_SLH said:
If you want a red ring you can get rubber bands at the post office in a selection of colours.
Click to expand...

The posties round here leave 'em all over the floor. Joking apart I've got a 17-40L on my 40d and it's a cracking lens, however I'm thinking about the 17-55 as a faster lens with IS also.
 
I had the Sigma 24-70, thought about both the 24-105 and Canon 24-70 but settled on the 17-55. Why ?

Because it's a damn good lens, it's built well, it has IS, and on a crop body (I have a 7D) it offers a similar FL to the 24-70. It's also f2.8 which find has really helped my photography in general.

Stop moaning about red rings, just get yer wallet out and spent the money - it's well worth it in my opinion....

Steve
 
Last edited:
Has anyone mentioned the 17-55?

It's a fantastic lens and the one I'd still go for, but the newer 15-85 is also very good. Fantastic range (those extra 2mm on the short end make a useful difference if you like wide) and very sharp, but it's not f/2.8...
 
I think when the OP buys one he should put a little red ring (I'm sure you can buy self adhesive tape like it) around the end of the lens. just for giggles.
 
Sorry to hijack the thread, but is the 17-55 IS a good lens for portraiture, will be using on a 40d, looking for a lens as im starting a home portrait business, been looking at the canon 24-105 IS
tamron 28-75 2.8
and now the canon 17-55 2.8 IS.

Andy
 
Andy77 said:
Sorry to hijack the thread, but is the 17-55 IS a good lens for portraiture, will be using on a 40d, looking for a lens as im starting a home portrait business, been looking at the canon 24-105 IS
tamron 28-75 2.8
and now the canon 17-55 2.8 IS.

Andy
Click to expand...

As a FF equivalent, the 55 is equivalent to an 88mm which is near ideal for portraiture.
 
Andy77 said:
Sorry to hijack the thread, but is the 17-55 IS a good lens for portraiture, will be using on a 40d, looking for a lens as im starting a home portrait business, been looking at the canon 24-105 IS
tamron 28-75 2.8
and now the canon 17-55 2.8 IS.

Andy
Click to expand...

Yes, 50-ish is good for head shots, then zoom back for full length and groups. F/2.8 is also handy for shallow DoF effects :thumbs:

And with respect, I think anybody wishing to charge for their photography should know the answer to questions like this.
 
HoppyUK said:
Yes, 50-ish is good for head shots, then zoom back for full length and groups. F/2.8 is also handy for shallow DoF effects :thumbs:

And with respect, I think anybody wishing to charge for their photography should know the answer to questions like this.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply, there's alot of good glass out there, and i just wanted to know how the 17-55 compared to the other's as i never had experience with them...

Andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top