24-105 or 17-55 with 70D

[xFireSoul]

Which one will be more useful on the 70D?

 

[ronlane]

Personally, I'd rather have the 24-105 for a canon walk around lens.

 

[CameraClicker]

Well, 17 mm is a lot wider than 24 mm and 105 mm is a lot longer than 55 mm. So, I use Sigma 18-200 and 18-250 lenses on my APS-C bodies a lot of the time. Sometimes I use a 10-20 when I need a really wide shot, and sometimes I use a 100-400 when I need a longer lens. When shooting the moon, I use the 100-400 with a 2X teleconverter to get 800 mm! When shooting house flies, I use a 100 mm macro or a 150 mm macro.

Without knowing what you are going to be shooting, any answer about which would be better, would not be informative.

 

[xFireSoul]

Well I mostly shoot street, but thats for fun.
On the serious side, I shoot portraits and landscape. I do know that 24-105 isn't proper for landscape, so I have planned of buying Samyang 14mm f/2.8 in future.

Personaly, I was thinking that 24-105 is perf, but a friend of mine suggested that 17-55 would fit better and will be more useful for my needs.. I am confused.

 

[CameraClicker]

24-105 might be the better choice. 55 mm is a bit short for portraits as long as you can back up to fit people in. Shooting with a shorter lens from closer will give people larger noses than standing back and compressing the scene with a longer lens.

The 24-105 is usually Canon's kit lens for full frame cameras and their 18-55 is the kit lens for APS-C bodies. Some of that is cost. Long ago the kit lens for their film cameras was a well made 50 mm lens.

You can use any lens for landscape. I have shots from China where I was at 250 mm because I couldn't get close.

 

[xFireSoul]

I hope you noticed I was talking about 17-55.
And yeah. I agree with you. But will I get the better photo quality with 24-105? Cuz that matter too

 

[CameraClicker]

I hope you noticed I was talking about 17-55.
And yeah. I agree with you. But will I get the better photo quality with 24-105? Cuz that matter too

Yes, I know. But the kit lens is the plastic 18-55, which by the way is a fairly decent lens. When traveling, I often toss it in my checked luggage so I have a lens if I damage my primary lens. My points are:
You might already have 18-55 if you have the kit lens.
Canon thinks you need the wider end if you will be shooting birthday parties and kids/pets running around indoors.
As the cost of the kit goes up, you get a better lens.

Will you get better photo quality with the 24-105? It depends on how you shoot, and what. You can get excellent quality from almost any of the lenses on the market today. Even the all plastic ones are fairly good. Canon's L lenses will stand more abuse, generally. The 24-105 is a lens I should possibly have instead of the 24-70 f/2.8. It has the advantage of stabilization, is only a stop slower, and has a longer focal length.

For me, I like to be able to shoot very wide one instant and very long the next. And, I'm not all that worried about a blurry background. So on APS-C bodies I use 18-250, usually, and on full frame I use 28-300, which is a very big, heavy lens. But for general day to day stuff, it works well. If I could only have one camera and one lens, an APS-C body and 18-250 lens would be my choice because it covers almost everything. With a modicum of care, image quality is good enough unless you are shooting stock.

Find something that offers the range you need, that you can hold still, and you can afford. Image quality is nice, but don't get too hung up on it because there are only a few times that it will matter and many other considerations will be more important.

 

[Derrel]

I would take the 24-105-L over the 17-55 for outdoor shooting. Indoors, the 17-55 would be a better option in most situations.

 

[xFireSoul]

As my 1 year experience can say, I did shoot quiet little times indoor. Most of the times I am outdoor. Portraits and everything else.
I have shooted in a church once and thats the only "event" I photographed.
Also, If i continue with the photography, after 2-3 years I am planning on getting a FF, so with the 24-105 it will be all fine. But untill then, because I am moving from Nikon, I want everything to be cool.

 

[Lumens]

Bottom line choice between the 17-50 and 24-105 is the range you want to shoot, both lenses are good lenses. So 17-50 converts to 27.2 to 80 while the 24-105 converts to 38.4 to 168. What range do you need?

 

[xFireSoul]

It's about the more suitable.. And I think having 24-105 and getting a wide-angle in future is best for me.
Also getting a 70-300 if i need more range, but that's just in case.

 

[regdawg]

By choosing a non-STM lens, is it safe to say that you won't be shooting much video?

 

[runnah]

The 24-105 is heads and shoulders above the 17-55. Take care of it and it will last for decades.