17-55mm f2.8 IS VS 24-105mm f4L IS

EColi · 21st September 2007

Hi guys, need some advice regarding how to spend my hard earn cash

I have the canon 350, tammy 17-50f2.8, canon 70-200f4L non IS. Thinking of getting either
1. canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS
2. canon 24-105mm f4L IS
My main requirement is low light capability, so which one of the choices will excel in this area?
I am leaning towards 17-55, but I have the tammy 17-50 already, is the Image quality comparable? Is it redundent for me to get the 17-55 becos of the overlap in focal length?
That's why I am considering the 24-105 too, to complement my lens. But I am very concern regarding the image quality, some forumers has complained about soft copies. I am also concern if the f4 IS good enough for low lights use?
Sometimes I wish my pocket is abit deeper, or I have chosen another cheaper hobby

Cheers, and thanks in advance for your advices!

genegoh · 21st September 2007

If you get the 17-55, yes, your tamron 17-50 will be redundant.
As to which lens you should get, depends on what you like to shoot.
Do you need the reach of the 24-105 to shoot streets and candids? The wide range for general walkabouts?
Do you need the f2.8 of the 17-55 to shoot indoors? For event photography, IS helps a bit, but not much cos your shutter speed does have to be fast enough to freeze the motion.
Also, are you going to upgrade to full-frame anytime soon? It is a factor to consider also.

EColi · 21st September 2007

thanks genegoh for ur reply.
I shoot both landscape as well as portrait, most of my shots were made at focal length 17-80mm, so I think both lens will serve me well. If i were to buy the24-105mm, I will most probably keep the 17-50 for low light and wide shots. The extra reach at the 105mm end will be a bonus, and it will compliment well with my 70-200.
My main concern is whether the 24-105mm with the IS is good enough for handheld low light shots? I think f4 may be too slow, even with IS, but I am not sure, thus hoping some bro with this lens can advice. Another concern is the image quality, the MTF for 17-55 is impressive, and I have seen some online review berating the image quality of the 24-105. If I were to dump $1K on this lens, i would expect the image quality to be similar, if not better than my tammy, which is 50% cheaper.
As for shifting to FF eventually, that's not on my radar soon, but even if i do, will most likely keep my 350D as a backup, so all my crop lens will still be in used.
So my bottom line is this, Image quality and handheld low light capability will be my only consideration, disregarding the L-build issues, future upgrading possibility etc etc. Base on my consideration, which has the best cost-benefit ratio?

gryphon · 21st September 2007

In low light, with a IS on you can shoot at lower shutter speed (about 3 stop or more advantage).
However if your object is in motion it will be blur.

with a f2.8 lens, you can shoot at higher shutter speed, hence "freezing" the object.

So a larger aperature lens as well as a lens with IS both can let you do handheld shots at lowlight. But results will be different. To have both f2.8 & IS will let you have more options & let you shoot handheld at even dimmer conditions.

askpaul · 21st September 2007

well.... i using 24-105mm f4 L
its defintely better than 17-55 f2.8 IS on outdoor photography...

however... its not helpful on indoor events like concert..
but i using 50mm f/1.4 to solve my indoor problem...

however mine is 400D... having a 1.6 sensor... makes my 50mm having the width of only 80mm
thats sucks...
but... for lighting wise... i am highly covered...

i think u should tell us what is your key type of photography before we can help you better

jasperng · 21st September 2007

i am using 400D with 17-55 IS and handled 24-105 IS as my gf owns 1.
read the below as is commented from a 1.6 cropped cam. may difer from the cam u using now.

both lens gives excellent pic quality unless is a bad copy. numerous threads in CS suggest there are indeed bad copies out there, but you can spend $ and send in to canon service center to "repair".

17-55 is good in low light (mainly indoor and perhaps nite landscape) due to the 2.8 + IS.
i handheld shot Mr. Merlion at 2.8 at nite ... as merlion is well litted.... the result is acceptable with no hand shake. 17-55 is reputed for the lens/image quality a L, but the case itself is not (not waterproof and the focus ring is quite loose). the only problem is the zoom will not reach far.

24-105 is a excellent lens for day shoot. good reach with IS. but at 24mm, it might not be wide enuff for landscaping shot. not to mention in indoor, if you shooting wedding dinner or in HDB flat, 24mm is quite hard to pack lotsa people (group foto) in.

my advise is to know your own shooting habit. if ya main requirement is lowlight, you have to look at the 2.8 range of lenses. for 1.6 crop camera, 17-55 2.8 + 70-200 2.8 shd be a good range. for FF cam, 16-35 2.8 (optional) + 24-70 2.8 + 70-200 2.8

remember the usefulness to IS and low f-stop is only, but not limited to...
IS = prevent or reduce your hand shake so you can use lower shutter speed.... oso mean if your subject move then blur.

low f-stop (big aperture) = freeze your subjects (much more useful), but the depth of field smaller = blur foreground or background...

*i am also a newbie in fotography. i welcome any critics or comment to my above post, so we can learn

boogle · 21st September 2007

If you do get the 17-55mm, you should sell off your Tamron 17-50 due to redundancy. This will help to give you a small subsidy on your new purchase. Besides the IS advantage and slightly longer reach compared to your tamron, I like having the FTM focussing feature. This allows you to autofocus and then do fine adjustments to your focus manually before you snap without having to switch to between manual focus and AF mode.

EColi · 22nd September 2007

Thanks all for the fabulous advice.
I am not shooting for money, purely for pleasure, just that I am pissed with the low keeper rate that I am having with my current setup.
Just went nite shooting with my tammy 17-50, and realised how versatile and sharp this little lens can be!
I think I will most likely keep my current set up.
Just discover the tokina 50-135mm f2.8....shall do more research in this lens
Cheers and thanks!

blurry80 · 17th March 2008

can ask if the USM in canon's autofocus is really much faster than the autofocus in Tamron?

grantyale · 17th March 2008

It is. But it ultimately depends on what you want to do with the lens. Tamron is not too slow.

blurry80 · 17th March 2008

i kinda love the usm's speed in focusing. but i dont think i need that fast a AF as i dont do sports. just for taking indoor events, maybe a performance or 2 which i can prefocus.

Roasty · 17th March 2008

ah.. i'm also torn between the 17-55 and 24-105..
my friend keeps telling me, i'll miss the wide angle if i go with the 24-105 as i'm on 400d body.
both have IS USM.. but the 2.8 is really tempting. and so is the L build and quality.

charlesleong · 17th March 2008

I have both lenses on a 400D body (17-55 2.8 and 24-105L) and they're fantastic complements of each other.

As stated above, the 17-55 is better for low light conditions but the reach of the 24-105 is quite useful also.

In a small room, i'll take the 17-55. Outdoors, i'd prefer the 24-105.

zan82 · 17th March 2008

Originally Posted by EColi

thanks genegoh for ur reply.
I shoot both landscape as well as portrait, most of my shots were made at focal length 17-80mm, so I think both lens will serve me well. If i were to buy the24-105mm, I will most probably keep the 17-50 for low light and wide shots. The extra reach at the 105mm end will be a bonus, and it will compliment well with my 70-200.
My main concern is whether the 24-105mm with the IS is good enough for handheld low light shots? I think f4 may be too slow, even with IS, but I am not sure, thus hoping some bro with this lens can advice. Another concern is the image quality, the MTF for 17-55 is impressive, and I have seen some online review berating the image quality of the 24-105. If I were to dump $1K on this lens, i would expect the image quality to be similar, if not better than my tammy, which is 50% cheaper.
As for shifting to FF eventually, that's not on my radar soon, but even if i do, will most likely keep my 350D as a backup, so all my crop lens will still be in used.
So my bottom line is this, Image quality and handheld low light capability will be my only consideration, disregarding the L-build issues, future upgrading possibility etc etc. Base on my consideration, which has the best cost-benefit ratio?

After viewing your needs, your range is quite well covered and shooting between 17-80. If that's the case, why not just get the 24-70L? You'd be pretty much covered.

Assuming you need on the wide side, for group shots, I doubt you'd really shoot at f2.8. Anything longer than 70, you have the 70-200L to complement.

Comparing 24-70 to 24-105, I think among all the threads I've read and seen, the former is better too. Faster lens without the IS.

It's your call anyways

21st September 2007	#1
EColi New Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 45	17-55mm f2.8 IS VS 24-105mm f4L IS Hi guys, need some advice regarding how to spend my hard earn cash I have the canon 350, tammy 17-50f2.8, canon 70-200f4L non IS. Thinking of getting either 1. canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS 2. canon 24-105mm f4L IS My main requirement is low light capability, so which one of the choices will excel in this area? I am leaning towards 17-55, but I have the tammy 17-50 already, is the Image quality comparable? Is it redundent for me to get the 17-55 becos of the overlap in focal length? That's why I am considering the 24-105 too, to complement my lens. But I am very concern regarding the image quality, some forumers has complained about soft copies. I am also concern if the f4 IS good enough for low lights use? Sometimes I wish my pocket is abit deeper, or I have chosen another cheaper hobby Cheers, and thanks in advance for your advices! __________________ Canon 40D, Canon 350D, Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, Canon 70-200mm f4L, Canon 50mm f1.8, Canon 85mm f1.8

21st September 2007	#2
genegoh Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Tanah Merah Posts: 606	Re: 17-55mm f2.8 IS VS 24-105mm f4L IS If you get the 17-55, yes, your tamron 17-50 will be redundant. As to which lens you should get, depends on what you like to shoot. Do you need the reach of the 24-105 to shoot streets and candids? The wide range for general walkabouts? Do you need the f2.8 of the 17-55 to shoot indoors? For event photography, IS helps a bit, but not much cos your shutter speed does have to be fast enough to freeze the motion. Also, are you going to upgrade to full-frame anytime soon? It is a factor to consider also. __________________ Weddings Blog

21st September 2007	#3
EColi New Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 45	Re: 17-55mm f2.8 IS VS 24-105mm f4L IS thanks genegoh for ur reply. I shoot both landscape as well as portrait, most of my shots were made at focal length 17-80mm, so I think both lens will serve me well. If i were to buy the24-105mm, I will most probably keep the 17-50 for low light and wide shots. The extra reach at the 105mm end will be a bonus, and it will compliment well with my 70-200. My main concern is whether the 24-105mm with the IS is good enough for handheld low light shots? I think f4 may be too slow, even with IS, but I am not sure, thus hoping some bro with this lens can advice. Another concern is the image quality, the MTF for 17-55 is impressive, and I have seen some online review berating the image quality of the 24-105. If I were to dump $1K on this lens, i would expect the image quality to be similar, if not better than my tammy, which is 50% cheaper. As for shifting to FF eventually, that's not on my radar soon, but even if i do, will most likely keep my 350D as a backup, so all my crop lens will still be in used. So my bottom line is this, Image quality and handheld low light capability will be my only consideration, disregarding the L-build issues, future upgrading possibility etc etc. Base on my consideration, which has the best cost-benefit ratio? __________________ Canon 40D, Canon 350D, Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, Canon 70-200mm f4L, Canon 50mm f1.8, Canon 85mm f1.8

21st September 2007	#4
gryphon Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Dry cabinet! Posts: 1,710	Re: 17-55mm f2.8 IS VS 24-105mm f4L IS In low light, with a IS on you can shoot at lower shutter speed (about 3 stop or more advantage). However if your object is in motion it will be blur. with a f2.8 lens, you can shoot at higher shutter speed, hence "freezing" the object. So a larger aperature lens as well as a lens with IS both can let you do handheld shots at lowlight. But results will be different. To have both f2.8 & IS will let you have more options & let you shoot handheld at even dimmer conditions. __________________ Dreaming... 14mm f2.8, 16-35 f2.8 mkII, 85 f1.2 mkII Last edited by gryphon; 21st September 2007 at 02:12 PM.

21st September 2007	#5
askpaul Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Serangoon Posts: 480	Re: 17-55mm f2.8 IS VS 24-105mm f4L IS well.... i using 24-105mm f4 L its defintely better than 17-55 f2.8 IS on outdoor photography... however... its not helpful on indoor events like concert.. but i using 50mm f/1.4 to solve my indoor problem... however mine is 400D... having a 1.6 sensor... makes my 50mm having the width of only 80mm thats sucks... but... for lighting wise... i am highly covered... i think u should tell us what is your key type of photography before we can help you better

21st September 2007	#6
jasperng Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 133	Re: 17-55mm f2.8 IS VS 24-105mm f4L IS i am using 400D with 17-55 IS and handled 24-105 IS as my gf owns 1. read the below as is commented from a 1.6 cropped cam. may difer from the cam u using now. both lens gives excellent pic quality unless is a bad copy. numerous threads in CS suggest there are indeed bad copies out there, but you can spend $ and send in to canon service center to "repair". 17-55 is good in low light (mainly indoor and perhaps nite landscape) due to the 2.8 + IS. i handheld shot Mr. Merlion at 2.8 at nite ... as merlion is well litted.... the result is acceptable with no hand shake. 17-55 is reputed for the lens/image quality a L, but the case itself is not (not waterproof and the focus ring is quite loose). the only problem is the zoom will not reach far. 24-105 is a excellent lens for day shoot. good reach with IS. but at 24mm, it might not be wide enuff for landscaping shot. not to mention in indoor, if you shooting wedding dinner or in HDB flat, 24mm is quite hard to pack lotsa people (group foto) in. my advise is to know your own shooting habit. if ya main requirement is lowlight, you have to look at the 2.8 range of lenses. for 1.6 crop camera, 17-55 2.8 + 70-200 2.8 shd be a good range. for FF cam, 16-35 2.8 (optional) + 24-70 2.8 + 70-200 2.8 remember the usefulness to IS and low f-stop is only, but not limited to... IS = prevent or reduce your hand shake so you can use lower shutter speed.... oso mean if your subject move then blur. low f-stop (big aperture) = freeze your subjects (much more useful), but the depth of field smaller = blur foreground or background... *i am also a newbie in fotography. i welcome any critics or comment to my above post, so we can learn __________________ Canon EOS 400D \| 10-22 \| 17-55 \| 24-105 \| 50 \| 70-300 \| 100 \| 430EX \| 580EX Panasonic Lumix FZ50

21st September 2007	#7
boogle Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 243	Re: 17-55mm f2.8 IS VS 24-105mm f4L IS If you do get the 17-55mm, you should sell off your Tamron 17-50 due to redundancy. This will help to give you a small subsidy on your new purchase. Besides the IS advantage and slightly longer reach compared to your tamron, I like having the FTM focussing feature. This allows you to autofocus and then do fine adjustments to your focus manually before you snap without having to switch to between manual focus and AF mode.

22nd September 2007	#8
EColi New Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 45	Re: 17-55mm f2.8 IS VS 24-105mm f4L IS Thanks all for the fabulous advice. I am not shooting for money, purely for pleasure, just that I am pissed with the low keeper rate that I am having with my current setup. Just went nite shooting with my tammy 17-50, and realised how versatile and sharp this little lens can be! I think I will most likely keep my current set up. Just discover the tokina 50-135mm f2.8....shall do more research in this lens Cheers and thanks! __________________ Canon 40D, Canon 350D, Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, Canon 70-200mm f4L, Canon 50mm f1.8, Canon 85mm f1.8

17th March 2008	#9
blurry80 Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Toa Payoh Posts: 433	Re: 17-55mm f2.8 IS VS 24-105mm f4L IS can ask if the USM in canon's autofocus is really much faster than the autofocus in Tamron? __________________ Canon 400D 50mm,28-75 F2.8, Ricoh GRDIII 28mm F1.9 www.flickr.com/jenson_goh

17th March 2008	#10
grantyale Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Pioneer Posts: 1,397	Re: 17-55mm f2.8 IS VS 24-105mm f4L IS It is. But it ultimately depends on what you want to do with the lens. Tamron is not too slow.

17th March 2008	#12
Roasty Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 218	Re: 17-55mm f2.8 IS VS 24-105mm f4L IS ah.. i'm also torn between the 17-55 and 24-105.. my friend keeps telling me, i'll miss the wide angle if i go with the 24-105 as i'm on 400d body. both have IS USM.. but the 2.8 is really tempting. and so is the L build and quality.

17th March 2008	#13
charlesleong Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,073	Re: 17-55mm f2.8 IS VS 24-105mm f4L IS I have both lenses on a 400D body (17-55 2.8 and 24-105L) and they're fantastic complements of each other. As stated above, the 17-55 is better for low light conditions but the reach of the 24-105 is quite useful also. In a small room, i'll take the 17-55. Outdoors, i'd prefer the 24-105.