Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Vs Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L Vs Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L

[Katie_photo]

Hi all
I am planning to buy a lens for General purpose photography (indoor and outdoor) for my canon T1i.
Can one of you suggest a better lens among Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM ,Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L and Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L.
Thanks Guys

 

[table1349]

Got to a photography shop and try them out on your body and see which one suits your needs. Each has advantages and drawback. You need to decide which combination meets your needs.

 

[Big Mike]

That is good advice.

There is quite a big difference between 17mm and 24mm, especially on your camera. I'd personally want the 17-55mm because I like a wider field of view. I think that 24mm (on your camera) is just not wide enough for an 'all-around' lens.

But all three lenses that you have mentioned, are fantastic lenses. I wouldn't call any of them a bad choice.

 

[Katie_photo]

I have read in these forums that 24-105 is good for full frame and not good for crop, is that true?

 

[table1349]

I have read in these forums that 24-105 is good for full frame and not good for crop, is that true?

Depends on your shooting style and location. The difference between 17mm and 24 mm is about one or two steps back. That may be nothing or in a studio situation it may be more than you have room for. My zoom lens trifecta is the 16-35 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 and pick the lens I need, be it on a XXD body or on one of my 1D bodies.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=27

 

[Katie_photo]

So do you think 24-105 would be good for T1i?

 

[Big Mike]

I have read in these forums that 24-105 is good for full frame and not good for crop, is that true?

It would still be 'good'...but like I said before, it wouldn't be wide enough for my personal style. Your personal style and/or shooting situation may be different.

Either way, it's a great lens.

The other obvious factor is that the 24-105mm only has a maximum aperture of F4, while the other two have a max aperture of F2.8. That is only one stop...but when you need that faster shutter speed, every bit helps. Also, if you like a shallow DOF, then F2.8 will get you there better than F4 will.

 

[JClishe]

I own the 16-35 f/2.8L and recently took it, along with a rented 24-105 f/4L, on a week long family vacation. I didn't even bring my camera bag with me due to space issues, literally just my 50D, those 2 lenses, and a lens cloth. Whenever we left the hotel I just attached whichever lens I thought I needed and hoisted my camera over my shoulder on its BlackRapid strap (which worked out fantastic, BTW).

Generally speaking I used the 24-105 during the day when we were most likely to be sightseeing outdoors and 1) I wanted the additional reach, and 2) assumed I'd have plenty of available light. Then we'd go back to the room to shower / change, and I'd switch to the 16-35 under the assumptions that 1) we'd most likely be indoors for dinner and whatever else and I'd want a wide lens, and 2) I'd have less available light. Overall that approach worked out great, and I loved the 24-105 for the week that I had it.

Not sure how that helps your decision, other than to say that you really need to think about your intended usage and decide for yourself what combination of speed and reach is most important in a single lens.

 

[chaosrealm93]

i think the 24-70 would be nice....

 

[anth_333]

I have read in these forums that 24-105 is good for full frame and not good for crop, is that true?

Depends on your shooting style and location. The difference between 17mm and 24 mm is about one or two steps back. That may be nothing or in a studio situation it may be more than you have room for. My zoom lens trifecta is the 16-35 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 and pick the lens I need, be it on a XXD body or on one of my 1D bodies.
FM Reviews -

Yeah but I do not really think taking steps back and forward works? Because at 17mm the lens is going to take a different and more wider looking picture then at 24mm no matter if you step back or not.
If I was choosing the 10mm or the 17mm I do not think that I would get the 17mm and take a few steps back to get the same image that a 10mm lens would take. Is this right?

 

[EchoingWhisper]

I don't know about the quality of those lenses, but looking at the focal length and type, 17-55mm will be the best. 24-70mm and 24-105mm is just too large and a big part of the lens is wasted because the camera's small sensor.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

I have the 17-55 and it is a wonderful, wonderful lens. BUT, I have run into a wall with it in that is is a bit short for general purpose IMHO. I have looked at both the 24-70 and the 24-105, and have not made a new purchase yet on either as I am waiting a bit longer for a few other camera things to fall into place first.

There was a nice portrait shot over this weekend somewhere on here with the 24-70 and it looked darn good.

In any event, there are no other options than the 24-70 or the 24-105 for this range, and two really is enough...and I think in the end with the 2.8 I'd be taking the 24-70.

 

[TooShay]

I have the 24-70 (granted I just got it this weekend!) but I must say it is HEAVY. I probably will never use it for a walk around lens. I LOVE the lens, and I love the focal length, but I don't think I would have loved it as much on my old crop sensor. My vote is for the 17-55, unless you plan to eventually get a full frame camera.

 

[TheBiles]

I use the 24-105 as my walkaround lens. I prefer the extra reach and IS to the slightly faster 24-70. I didn't even consider buying the 17-55 because it is much too short for my taste, and its build quality doesn't match the L standards.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Even if you plan to get a full frame camera, you can always sell the lens.