24-105mm L series

[Phil V]

I'll go further: add an 85mm 1.8 and you'll never look back.

 

[ChrisJ_SLH]

But it's not. The kit lens is only 3.5 at 18mm it quickly jumps beyond f4.

The 17-55 would be my choice but you appear to be dismissing it based on its lack of red ring. As far as I'm concerned, that's your loss.

The 17-55 is the obvious choice here. Especially as the price seems to have come so much recently.

If you really want a red ring get a suitably coloured elastic band.

 

[Xeorix]

The 17-55 is the obvious choice here. Especially as the price seems to have come so much recently.

If you really want a red ring get a suitably coloured elastic band.

It's not the obvious choice as I am after something with a bit more zoom as I find the 55mm a little too restrictive

I quite regularly find myself in a position trying to photo at 55mm and wishing I had just a bit more

 

[woof woof]

But it's not. The kit lens is only 3.5 at 18mm it quickly jumps beyond f4.

The 17-55 would be my choice but you appear to be dismissing it based on its lack of red ring. As far as I'm concerned, that's your loss.

I may be nit picking here but on what planet is 18mm @f3.5 not wider in every sense than 24mm @f4? I may be nit picking on the aperture as it goes beyond f4 when you zoom but the focal length shouldn't be in dispute and the wide end could well be an advantage when shooting indoors.

Personally I'd go for a Tamron 17-85mm f2.8 and in fact I did when I had a Canon APS-C. It isn't long but the f2.8 comes in handy for lower light photography and may come in handy for the OP's requirement for indoor photography. It's also a jump in IQ over the kit lens. If wanting additional reach I'd consider the Tamron 55-200mm which as far as I remember is well regarded and is reasonably priced.

It's a two lens solution but I think that personally on APS-C I'd rather go for that than a 24-105mm f4

 

[a1ex2001]

It's not the obvious choice as I am after something with a bit more zoom as I find the 55mm a little too restrictive

I quite regularly find myself in a position trying to photo at 55mm and wishing I had just a bit more

It seems to me you've already decided that you want the 24-105mm and gave constructed a set of requirements that make it the only fit.

Go and buy it I'm sure you'll enjoy it many people find them fine as a walk about on a crop.

 

[ChrisJ_SLH]

It's not the obvious choice as I am after something with a bit more zoom as I find the 55mm a little too restrictive

I quite regularly find myself in a position trying to photo at 55mm and wishing I had just a bit more

All lenses are a compromise in one way or another. Prioritise your focal length range and chose on that basis. You aren't going to find one lens that is best for both wide end low light indoors and outdoor tele-photo use.

My priority was always the 17-55 range and low light and the 17-55 IS USM suited me perfectly on my old 40D, I backed that up with the 55-250 F/4-5.6 for any zoom use, cheap as chips but acceptable IQ.

 

[Phil V]

I may be nit picking here but on what planet is 18mm @f3.5 not wider in every sense than 24mm @f4? I may be nit picking on the aperture as it goes beyond f4 when you zoom but the focal length shouldn't be in dispute and the wide end could well be an advantage when shooting indoors.
...

Did you read my post? And what I was responding to?

Sometimes people can be so quick to pick an argument they can go off half cocked!

I was responding to the comment about the kit lens being faster, I made no comment about the wider bit.

And you'll see we reached similar conclusions, although I always recommend the Canon for its superior focus motor, which matters so much more in real life than similar MTF results.

 

[valb]

I am beginning to feel sorry for the OP - so much conflicting advice. Personally I cannot see any real advantage of the 17-55. It is not a bad lens but it is not that good! It is almost identical in length to the 18-55 kit lens you have and aside from being a little faster and a bit better IQ adds nothing else to what you already have.

I maybe wrong but I thought you were looking for some additional length for your trip to Florida. If you buy the 17-55 you might as well sell the 18-55.

If you do need extra length and want to stick to Canon then it has to be the 15-85 or the 24-105. Otherwise the Sigma 17-70 or the Tamron 17-85 mentioned above come into consideration.

In your shoes I would make a decision and buy a good second user lens. If you do not like your new toy you can sell it and buy something different. You have the time to do this.

Reading other peoples opinions of lenses is fraught with danger. We are by nature subjective and all look at things from our own perspective. In any case a lot of negative comments are probably down to the user not being able to get the best from the lens/camera not a failing of the equipment.

 

[ChrisJ_SLH]

I am beginning to feel sorry for the OP - so much conflicting advice. Personally I cannot see any real advantage of the 17-55. It is not a bad lens but it is not that good! It is almost identical in length to the 18-55 kit lens you have and aside from being a little faster and a bit better IQ adds nothing else to what you already have.

So 2 full stops at 55mm is just 'a little faster'?

As for offering 'nothing else' how about much improved IQ, improved low light focusing ability, faster focusing, reduced CA, reduced distortion across the range, full time manual focusing etc Yeah not much...

To the OP, may I suggest your get body (camera and physical) along to a friendly camera emporium and ask to try the lenses you are considering on it.

 

[Xeorix]

So 2 full stops at 55mm is just 'a little faster'?

As for offering 'nothing else' how about much improved IQ, improved low light focusing ability, faster focusing, reduced CA, reduced distortion across the range, full time manual focusing etc Yeah not much...

To the OP, may I suggest your get body (camera and physical) along to a friendly camera emporium and ask to try the lenses you are considering on it.

Literally just been into Jessops. The 17-55 mm isn't for me. I need a bit more range.

15-85mm is still a contender but I'm finding one of the rings a little fiddly. Also the softness at 15mm around the edges and the CA is disappointing...

The 24-105mm is great. Nice and sharp and I LOVE the f/4 throughout the range. I'd say the only issue is its a bit heavier and the price.

So the decision is between the 15-85mm and the 24-105mm. Didn't real feel the Tamron for some reason

 

[valb]

Yes the 17-55 is a better lens but all the "benefits" you list are only of value if they meet the "needs" of the buyer. In sales terms this is called the needs benefits analysis.

From what he has said these benefits do not meet his needs hence my comment of nothing else.

Things like reduced CA and reduced distortion are easily corrected in any case.

 

[ChrisJ_SLH]

Yes the 17-55 is a better lens but all the "benefits" you list are only of value if they meet the "needs" of the buyer. In sales terms this is called the needs benefits analysis.

From what he has said these benefits do not meet his needs hence my comment of nothing else.

Things like reduced CA and reduced distortion are easily corrected in any case.

I'm off to Florida in April and I'm looking and upgrading my lens to something a bit better. That is jumping from the 18-55mm lens to a 24-105mm L series.

I need to have the low focal length for any indoor shots as I'm restricted in space at home, however want something with the flexibility for outdoor too, in this case, Orlando etc

Indoor generally less light than outdoor, f/2.8 therefore better than f/4 (or f/3.5).

Low focal length, 17 < 24.

The OP's post read like he was prioritising the wide end to me.

The compromise is telephoto reach. You can crop in, move closer (if possible) or carry a second lens.

You can't always use flash if you don't have the light and you can't step back if there is a wall in the way.

However, I agree with a1ex2001, I think the OP had already decided on the 24-105 at the start of this thread.

..and thanks for the lesson in sales! ;-)

 

[Phil V]

Yes the 17-55 is a better lens but all the "benefits" you list are only of value if they meet the "needs" of the buyer. In sales terms this is called the needs benefits analysis.

From what he has said these benefits do not meet his needs hence my comment of nothing else.

Things like reduced CA and reduced distortion are easily corrected in any case.

It's completely off topic at this point, but no-one who ever used those two lenses would compare the difference as 'adding nothing'. That's completely laughable, and seriously, if you think the only differences between those 2 lenses can be fixed in post, maybe you have picked the wrong hobby.

I read the OPs original requirement as better build and IQ rather than focal length. His opening statement being he wanted something 'a bit better', he also said he wanted the width for indoor shots before saying he'd like more length too (when he finally mentioned the 24-105 - which ignores his 2nd requirement).

 

[Xeorix]

Let me clarify for arguments sake. My current setup of 18mm is perfectly wide enough for my needs. What I meant by that is I didn't want suggestions such as 70-200mm

 

[valb]

Enough said.

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

To see what 24mm is like indoors, why not try taping your kit lens at 24mm and then start taking shots around your home and see how you get on. That's what I would do.