Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Gave up 24-105L for 17-55 lens. Am I crazy?

h1r0ll3r

h1r0ll3r

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Dec 28, 2009
3,920
19
Maryland
So I've been battling over which lens would offer the best IQ for my camera (Canon T3i). Gave up the kit lens and bought the 24-105L since it had the range I was looking for and I could pop my L lens cherry. It was a great lens and took some great pics however the f/4 on it made low light situations impossible without the use of a flash.

So, as of yesterday, I pawned off the 24-105L and bought a 17-55 IS USM lens instead. The f/2.8 on that should help out greatly for lowlight but at the disadvantage of losing a lot of range from the 24-105 lens. As I have a crop body, I figured the 17-55 would be best suited for that, not that the 24-105 was a slouch or anything. I also have the 10-22 and, most likely, will pick up the 55-250 MKII lens as well so sorta make up for the loss in range. That trio of lenses should pretty much cover anything I need shooting wise so I think that's the way to go for me.

I think it's a good choice for me however the thought of parting with a L lens makes me think it might not have been such a good idea. Parting with a L lens seems almost blasphemous. Any of you out there have any experience with the 17-55? I'm getting the lens tomorrow so I'll know for sure if this was a good choice or not. Just needed to see if anyone else out there did something similar.
 
This L fetishism is ridiculous.

The 24-105L isn't that great a range on a cropped camera - the 17-55 makes a lot more sense. I'd much rather have f2.8 as well.

I have a cropped frame camera and mainly use the 24 f2.8 with it. I'd like to get the 17-55 at some point, as it might be a nice walk-around combination.

I do also have a 5DII and some L zooms... but I use whatever is appropriate, and I have no hesitation picking up my 550D and (non L) 24mm.

I also don't really believe in the necessity of 'covering all focal lengths'. I don't do much ultra-wide stuff (and the occasional shot, I can shoot multiple frames and stitch into a panorama) and I don't shoot sports or wildlife. I don't own a lens longer than 85mm or shorter than 17mm.
 
I guess money wise you needed to sell the one to get the other? It odes sound like you made a decent choice, especially if you get the other lenses you mentioned.
 
Most of my shooting is done below 55mm as I usually love taking wide angle shots so the two lenses I have now should suffice. I figure if I can't get close enough to shot it then it's probably not photo worthy enough for me. I simply wanted to get the 55-250 for those "other" moments when a zoom is needed. That and it's a cheap lens so no real investment as far as that's concerned. Were I to buy a 100-400L lens just to have then, yeah, that would be pretty useless/wasteful for me.

Fortunately I sold my 24-105 pretty quickly so once I got the money I simply turned around and bought the 17-55 online. Pretty even swap for the most part. Overall I'm happy, once I get the lens and play with it then I should be good to go.
 
I enjoy the 24-105 as a walk around lens. It covers a lot and is very sharp.
 
The 17-55mm f2.8 IS is okay. Better than the kit lens but not by much at the wide end. Lots of CA, lots of fall off, but reasonably sharp (especially at the center) at most focal lengths. The funny thing is since it's heavier and its IS is worse, the kit lens is effectively about as fast at full wide (a half stop slower, but much easier to handhold on a small camera). But the kit lens has more CA and slightly worse corner sharpness, though the kit lens has considerably nicer bokeh. And the 17-55mm IS has very little distortion. Pretty impressive overall but not spectacular in any one regard.

I've never used an L lens (that's sort of a lie; I've never owned one, though), but the 17-55mm IS is pretty good. The 17-24mm range is totally indispensable and the speed is nice, might have to sell this if I ever upgrade to full frame but I'm going to miss it a lot. The focal length range is perfect for APS-C, I wouldn't consider anything else to be remotely as capable for general purpose use.
 
I had the 17-55, wasn't too crazy about it. I felt like all of my pictures were too soft and it droves me nuts. I could've possibly just had a bad version or not calibrated.

Anyways, I sold it and bought a 24-70 a few months ago. Very happy with the 24-70.
 
I'd say you were crazy for not going with the 17-55 in the first place! :D :p

The EF-S 17-55 is an amazing lens... f2.8, IS, good focal range, light but solidly constructed, and widely regarded as having the image quality of an L lens. For a versatile, walk-around every-day lens, you can't beat it.

I'm considering going full-frame when the next 5D comes along, but the only thing holding me back is the lack of a lens comparable to the 17-55. The 24-105 has IS but is f4. The 24-70 is f2.8 but no IS and the newer 24-70 II is priced out of this world. :( I may just stick with my 7D and the 17-55. :eek:
 
VirtualRain said:
I'd say you were crazy for not going with the 17-55 in the first place! :D :p

The EF-S 17-55 is an amazing lens... f2.8, IS, good focal range, light but solidly constructed, and widely regarded as having the image quality of an L lens. For a versatile, walk-around every-day lens, you can't beat it.

I'm considering going full-frame when the next 5D comes along, but the only thing holding me back is the lack of a lens comparable to the 17-55. The 24-105 has IS but is f4. The 24-70 is f2.8 but no IS and the newer 24-70 II is priced out of this world. :( I may just stick with my 7D and the 17-55. :eek:
Click to expand...

If you tend to shoot wider rather than longer there is always the 16 35 2.8 L ...you will loose some range but gain a lot on the wide.
 
firestarter said:
This L fetishism is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Seconded.
The 17-55 mm makes a lot of sense focal length-wise since it corresponds to a 28-80 mm lens on full frame which has been the bread and butter zoom range for most photography. Actually, since Canon doesn't offer L lenses for crop cameras, I think in many instances, the focal length range does not fit ideally to crop bodies.

So people either change their shooting habits or repurpose UW-W zooms (rather: zooms which are UW-W zooms on full frame) such as the 17-40 mm.
 
Makes perfect sense to me. Just because a lens has a red ring around it doesn't mean your photos will be any better. Far more important to be using a lens you are comfortable with and suits your style of shooting.

I switched my 24-105L for the older 28-70L and came out in profit. I gained a stop and lost some range but am far happier with it (on full-frame).
 
steveash said:
Dammit, I could have saved a fortune! I wonder if the same thing works by adding on a 0 to the 18-50mm making it an 18-500mm zoom?
Click to expand...

no, you need a more of a "manual" zoom like shown below.. :)
 

Attachments

  • 427054_10150672884827873_644222872_11323545_72565153_n.jpg
    427054_10150672884827873_644222872_11323545_72565153_n.jpg
    55.6 KB · Views: 222
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back