Returning 24-105mm Canon F4L to get 17-50mm Sigma and 50-150mm

[FamilyID]

I was wondering if the 17-50mm and 50-150mm would be as sharp as the Canon 24-105. I've read that the 17-50mm F2.8 can flush out on the corners. But my 24-105 isn't really sharp either.

 

[bentcountershaft]

17-50 yes. Not sure on 50-150.

 

[FamilyID]

So the 17-50 is sharper?

 

[Derrel]

I'm not that impressed with my 24-105 Canon L at the longer end of the zoom; at 105mm, it's NOT all that good a telephoto lens...I have a number of lenses that out-perform it at the longer end. If you really NEED the 105mm focal length, the chances are that it would be as good, or better, in the 50-150mm lens, than in the 24-105-L zoom. But then again, zoom lenses have quirks, variable in build quality, assembly, and sample variation.

If you shoot crop-frame camera, then having a 17-50 zoom and also having a 50-150mm zoom makes a LOT MORE sense than the 24-105 f/4. The range is just BETTER-suited to APS-C than 24-105mm is.

 

[TCampbell]

You can compare here:

Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM Lens Image Quality

Looks like the 24-105 has noticeable better contrast at that focal length, but also has some CA issues. There's a tiny little left/right arrow above the target image. If you move your mouse over it the image shifts to show the image as captured by the lens on the left vs the lens on the right.

Regards,
Tim

 

[FamilyID]

I'm not going FF anytime soon since the only reason I was going FF was because the focal lengths made more sense. But the 17-50mm and 50-150mm is like 24-200~ (I think )

 

[FamilyID]

You can compare here:

Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM Lens Image Quality

Looks like the 24-105 has noticeable better contrast at that focal length, but also has some CA issues. There's a tiny little left/right arrow above the target image. If you move your mouse over it the image shifts to show the image as captured by the lens on the left vs the lens on the right.

Regards,
Tim

How in the world does one read this... o.0?