Need a last bit of good advice!

[shoey]

Hey everyone.

I recently had to depart with my 24-105L due to cash flow problems (had to pay off the engagement ring:)) but just got a bonus at work(if only it was a month or 2 earlier) so i can now afford to buy another lens. Talk about sods law.

So.....

Here's the thing. I went into a local shop and had a play with a 17-55 2.8 ef-s the other day and i was pretty impressed with it. I didn't notice a huge difference in build quality to my L lens, obviously there was some difference, but not as much as i was expecting. Anyway, I kinda fancy this whole f/2.8 thing over the f/4 but i'm not overly sure yet.

I loved the range and the build on the L, i wasn't happy with how sharp it was at f/4 but after looking at lightrules' review, i think mine may have been a very soft copy.

So i guess what i'm asking is for opinions on whether to re-buy another 24-105 and hope its a better copy, or should i give the 17-55 a go?

[JTL]

So i guess what i'm asking is for opinions on whether to re-buy another 24-105 and hope its a better copy, or should i give the 17-55 a go?There's never a reason to "hope" for a better copy...especially with an L lens. If your copy is soft, return it. If the return period has expired, send it to Canon and demand that it be calibrated correctly. All it will cost you is the shipping and the insurance....the price you pay for delay. ;)

[coldrain]

If you loved the range of the 24-105mm f4 L.... then the answer would be obvious?
Or can you also love the range of a 17-55 f2.8 IS?
You can sharpen up a soft-ish result, you can not really make up for the 55-105mm difference as easily.

It really depends on you, and I think it is less about sharpness and aperture than it is about focal length. I would like both lenses, I am sure :D

[shoey]

I would like both lenses, I am sure :D

^This is my problem:D

I did like the FL of the L and the build, plus the hood etc. but i also liek the brighter viewfinder and wide angle of the 17-55.

The fact that my other 24-105 was soft doesn't bother me into thinking the next one will be. i just didn't notice before it was too late. And it wasn't the reason i sold it, although it would be nice to know i could use it at f/4 and not have to stop it down.

I've been struggling with the descision for a while now, and was just hoping someone may have had a similar dilema:)

[shoey]

Ah sod it!

Gone and ordered the 17-55. If i'd got the 24-105 again, i'd always be wondering what the 17-55 would've been like, so now i'll know:D

If i don't like it i can always sell it:)

The only thing holding me back on the 17-55 was the build quality, and a few peoples concerns about the lens loosening and decentering. I'm hoping that doesn't happen, although my 70-300 IS is of similar build and that's a little loose now.

Oh well, the countdown begins:D

[nqjudo]

I'm sure you'll get to enjoy the 2.8 if you shoot indoors a lot. They are both really nice units. I found the 24-105 too wide at the short end but I guess it depends on what you shoot.

[aparmley]

I think coldy gave great advice.

The only thing I can add is that I think you should take the 17-55 paired with your 70-300 IS (man I miss that combo) you'll only have a 15mm gap there that, personally, I feel falls into that "who cares about 56-69mm on a crop sensor" range. Take the $100 (the 17-55 IS has an instant rebate right now) and take your significant other out for a fancy dinner!

[shoey]

Well ultimately the sharpness, width, and constant 2.8 won me over and i'm now the proud owner of a 17-55 ef-s.:D

I have to say, there is a difference in build quality but not as much as i was expecting. First impressions of the actual lens were great, and the available light was a great improvement.

However...............

BAD NEWS!

I have discovered my camera is OOF!:(

I got the 'ol focus chart out, and its way off. Tried it on the work camera(350d) and it was spot on. Did so many tests and focus checks on all my lenses and the work camera and my 20D that my eyes started to bleed.

The outcome was that i sent the lens back hoping the next one would be right for my camera. Wishfull thinking! The new lens arrived the next day and it is EXACTLY and i mean EXACTLY the same:(. So it's deffo my camera. Bad thing is my 70-300 focuses ok on my camera, so that is going to have to go in for re-calibration as well. Oh well.

Good news is, when i focus it manually, its sharp, well i think so anyway!

Wide open the center sharness is very good. The corners seem a little off, but the edges are ok. Once it's stopped down, it's sharp all over.

Just need to get the camera sorted now:(

[michaelb]

Good luck Shoey; let us know how it goes.

I'm struggling with this decision myself right now. I really want an IS lens. The 17-55 would be a great FL to replace my Sigma 17-70, but the dust and potential resell issues sort of bother me. Plus, I can't help but keep thinking that the 24-105 on a 5D would be equivalent to a 15-65 f/4 IS on an XXD, which would be the perfect range for me. My primary concern with the 24-105 is that I would get frustrated by constantly having to switch to my 10-22due to the lack of the wide angle.

[nqjudo]

Michael - If you are going full frame, definitely hold out for the 24-105 unless the constant 2.8 is important to you and you wouldn't miss 17-23 on the FF body. I had a 24-105 that I sold in favor of the 17-55 2.8. I don't plan on going full frame. 24 was just too long at the wide end for me on a 1.6x body. The 24-105 is definitely the better piece of gear quality wise. If I went FF, I would probably give up the constant 2.8 and buy a 24-105.

If by 'My primary concern with the 24-105 is that I would get frustrated by constantly having to switch to my 10-22 due to the lack of the wide angle.' you are referring to using it on a 1.6x, you probably would get frustrated if you shoot a lot at the wide end of your 17-70. With the 24-105, I found that it is usually more difficult to step back from a subject than it was to move toward it. Speaking of the 17-70, I really miss mine at times, especially when I want something small and lightweight... or when my wife complains about the weight of the 17-55. I should never have sold it. Its going to be interesting to see which way you finally go.

[michaelb]

Michael - If you are going full frame, definitely hold out for the 24-105 unless the constant 2.8 is important to you and you wouldn't miss 17-23 on the FF body. I had a 24-105 that I sold in favor of the 17-55 2.8. I don't plan on going full frame. 24 was just too long at the wide end for me on a 1.6x body. The 24-105 is definitely the better piece of gear quality wise. If I went FF, I would probably give up the constant 2.8 and buy a 24-105.

If by 'My primary concern with the 24-105 is that I would get frustrated by constantly having to switch to my 10-22 due to the lack of the wide angle.' you are referring to using it on a 1.6x, you probably would get frustrated if you shoot a lot at the wide end of your 17-70. With the 24-105, I found that it is usually more difficult to step back from a subject than it was to move toward it. Speaking of the 17-70, I really miss mine at times, especially when I want something small and lightweight... or when my wife complains about the weight of the 17-55. I should never have sold it. Its going to be interesting to see which way you finally go.


Thanks for the detailed response nqjudo.

If my 17-70 had IS I don't think that I would be looking for a replacement. What you state about the 24-105 is exactly my concern - that I will get frustrated by the lack of the wide angle. I've been cosidering renting them both for a few days to see what I think of them side by side.

If I was going to go FF soon then I would get the 24-105, but I go back and fourth on the FF vs crop issue frequently; I really like my 40D though. On one forum someone suggested that the only real solution was to do what he did and get both!!; my wife would no doubt kill me. ;)

[Gintaras]

It looks like 17-55 is the best choice because of 2.8 through the range and IS. What would be the other choices? 17-40L and 17-35L? 17-40L is F4 and is fairly cheap L lens, 17-35L is F2.8 but lacks IS and costs more than 17-55.

If one does not plan going FF then 17-55 looks like a winner. Concerning dust collecting, I read different reports, not everyone gets dust on 17-55, may be Chinese vs. Japanese version issue?

[shoey]

Well,

I have owned both the 24-105L and now the 17-55 and i have to say that i still don't know which i prefer:(

It's such a hard choice for many reasons, but i think ultimately you can't go wrong with either unless you have one feature which is specifically important to you.

Overall the deciding factor for me was the fact that i can go to 2.8(which does make a difference) and that the 17-55 is very sharp wide open, which is where i spend most of my time. In fact sharpness is the one trait that i value the most, hence the 17-55.

On the otherhand the reach and build quality of the 24-105 was outstanding. I very rarely found myself needing much more than 105mm and if i did then i had the 70-300mm, but i found myself not needing to swap as much. I can see now that i'll need to use the 70-300 more often with the 17-55 but that's not such a bad thing is it?

I don't think i'll be upgrading to FF anytime soon either, so i'm not bothered about teh ef-s thing either.

Here is a sharpness sample at f/2.8 55mm. This is straight out of the camera, shot in jpeg with parameters on 0 for all. No PP at all, not even WB, didn't want to mess with the outcome.

frame
http://www.philshoebottom.co.uk/Photos/DCR/17-55/01.jpg

100% Center
http://www.philshoebottom.co.uk/Photos/DCR/17-55/02.jpg

100% Edge
http://www.philshoebottom.co.uk/Photos/DCR/17-55/03.jpg

I realise that the edge sharpness doesn't seem to be that great on my copy, but the center seems good, and once its at f/4 things start clearing up nicely. Also, the box wasn't completely square on, so some of the the blur might be from OOF


Cheers :)

[michaelb]

..... In fact sharpness is the one trait that i value the most, hence the 17-55......

....Here is a sharpness sample at f/2.8 55mm. This is straight out of the camera, shot in jpeg with parameters on 0 for all. No PP at all, not even WB, didn't want to mess with the outcome.

Cheers :)

I played with a 17-55 the other day and it was incredibly sharp, but the 24-105 seemed pretty sharp as well; its going to be a difficult decision - thanks for the input.

I think I can live with the dust issue - if it really bothers me I can always send it to Canon for cleaning and I have seen posts on how to clean it myself if I'm feeling especially brave.