canon 17-55 2.8 vs 24-105 f/4 L

C

c_robinson

Suspended / Banned
Messages
953
Name
charlie robinson
Edit My Images
No
Does anyone have any suggestions. ens will be mostly used as a walk about but also some motosport and nightclub (alonside some fast primes) stuff.

Both have IS, both have USM focussing motors and are of a similar price.

Have you experience of either? i know the quality,contrast and sharpness of the 24-105 f4 L is megga, but whats the 17-55 like?

I really think the 17mm wide end would be very handy, as it would stop me needing my 15-30.

All advice and recomendations welcome

Regards
Charlie
 
17-55 for On crop, want wide, want 2.8, don't plan to go FF soon
24-105 for FF, mainly because you can't use the 17-55.

It's really that simple.
 
Ive had both and loved both, the 17-55 won it for me as its lowlight capability and IS is brilliant.
 
I have the 24-105 and love it. I sometimes wish I had the wider angle with a faster aperture but just live with it. If I was in your position again though I do think I would go for the 17-55. I am always having to swap for my 10-20 but then holding on to it as I hope soon to move over to Full Frame.

It depends whether you plan on sticking with your crop body. For motorsport my 24-105 has worked flawlessly and produced some wonderful images.
 
Tried both and the 24-105mm won it for me. The extra build quality and range at the long end were more important than 1 stop and the extra width. Having to buy a hood and case, plus reported dust issues also turned me off of the 17-55mm. Used on a crop frame where I do not miss the 17-23mm very often.

Most new DSLR's have good high ISO capabilities so F/2.8 is not as needed as it once was.
 
I was put off the 17-55 buy QC issues - for an expensive lens it feels a little cheap to me and when I did once buy one I noticed 3 or 4 dust specs after zooming it end to end just a few times. It went back the same day. On the other hand, some report no dust issues and it is very sharp. I don't feel the colour rendition is as rich as the 24-105, but this can be boosted in PP.

I tend to use the 24-105 as a walkabout with 20D or 50D unless I know I'm likely to be wanting some sweeping landscapes when I grab the 16-35. I think the FL range of the 24-105 is fantastic (38mm-168mm on a crop effective). 38mm is moderately wide angle and 168mm is fairly telephoto so I think this is a more flexible lens than the 17-55 unless you know you are likely to need wide.

I'd definitely hold on to your 15-30 for wide and buy the 24-105 - quality piece of kit & feels it!

Phil
 
17-55 is great walkabout on a crop camera, perfect for clubbing, useless for motorsport. But then so is the 24-105 ;) You need at least 200mm for that, preferably 300-400mm.
 
HoppyUK said:
17-55 is great walkabout on a crop camera, perfect for clubbing, useless for motorsport. But then so is the 24-105 ;) You need at least 200mm for that, preferably 300-400mm.
Click to expand...

Not rallying!!! ;)

Charlie, I don't know much about Canon gear but I'd probably go for the 17-55 2.8, for the wider angle and the wider aperture. There is a fair difference between 17 and 24, I found my 18-70 a much more useful range than the crappy Sigma 24-70 I used to have! :bonk:
 
Either are great walkabout lenses to be honest.
I recently chose the 24-105 over a 17-55 purely because I did not need the wide end and would use the longer reach much much more.
There was no 'L' snoberry involved it was simply down to focal lengths.

It really is a choice you have to make based on what you think you'll want out of the lens, both produce stunning results and I would honestly be happy with either if push came to shove :)
 
They're both great optically. The 24-105L is more robust, but the 17-55 is f/2.8. Either would be a good purchase. I think it really comes down to whether you value the 17-24mm range more than the 55-105mm range, bearing in mind the likely use of the lens and how it fits alongside your other lenses.
 
is IS going to be much good in nightclub photography?
 
Guess it depends on
a) if clubs or motorsport is more important
b) what your primes are

For indoors, the 2.8 will be much handier than the f/4. The IS wont stop people dancing. If you have some nice primes and wont be so reliant on a fast zoom, then go for the f/4.

I use the Sigma 30 1.4 for low light, 24-105 for walkabout and 200 2.8 for motorsport

Sam
 
Thanks for your input. maybe i should have been more specific! Motorsport means rallying where you want as wide as you can get really for inside shots on hairpins!

I've settled for the 17-55 as i feel it'll cover me for more options on the rallying front and the 2.8 will come in handy, just gotta find one at a decent price now!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top