walk about lens on a crop sensor

[McBunny]

ef 24-105 F4 L or ef-s 17-55 F2.8 IS

the 24-105 would be great on a 5d but its an odd range on a crop but its an outstanding lens quality wise

the 17-55 is supposed to be L quality and its constant 2.8 with IS too
but its no use if i upgrade to full frame


this would combined with a 10-20 too


what to do !!!

 

[Rich]

I always planned to get a 17-40 f4L, but have never got round to it.

 

[Andy.]

I have the 24-105 and can't fault it as a walk about. So far I have not needed below the 24mm and as you are getting the 10-20 you should be okay.

The only thing I dont like about it is that it really is not that good indoors without a flash. I use the 30 f1.4 for that.

If I could choose again, I would probably go for the 17-55 as the majority of my photos are of junior and indoors somewhere.

 

[McBunny]

this will be for outdoors really will most probably get a sigma 30mm 1.4 soon ish for inside

 

[unofficialPete]

In a similar boat, went away camping recently and 4 lenses is a pain in the arse! I'm thinking sell my 2 primes (28 & 85) and buy the 17-55 or 24-70L or keep my primes and get the new Sigma 18-125 OS HSM.

 

[Rich]

I remembering you saying about the 18-125 before Pete, is it out now ?

 

[unofficialPete]

Yup but not widely, its on HK eBay and maybe a few UK stores now, been reading some positive stuff on POTN and dpreview, apparently the OS is capable of producing sharpe pictures at 125mm @ 1/30.

 

[Rich]

One to look at then ?

 

[unofficialPete]

One to look at then ?

Pending a few reviews I'd say so, as long as it proves sharper than the 18-200 OS, kit lens and is close to or better than the 17-85 I'm in. Only problem is I tend to shoot f/2-2.2 but I'm sire it'd make a great travel lens, really did hate being away and lugging 4 lenses.

 

[Spammy]

I think 24mm isn't wide enough tbh!

 

[Lagerlout]

Yes, but it's nearer 40mm in reality.

 

[Marky_]

My 24-70 sigma certainly isn't wide enough used with a 1.6 crop factor.

 

[McBunny]

i agree but with a 10-20 aswell it will be more than wide enough at an equiv of 16mm

 

[F&B]

Go with what's best for you now. I had the same dilemma, do I avoid all ef-s lenses just in case I upgrade, or do I get the best quality and most sensible zoom range for the camera I have at the moment?

I went with the 17-55mm having also had a 24-105mm for a month (borrowed from a friend to help me decide). I'm completely happy with my choice , the range this gives you on a crop is excellent and the 2.8 combined with IS make it outstanding for indoor shooting. The images are also sharper than the 24-105mm (in my experience) and 24 isn't wide enough.

I checked over the used prices of the Canon lenses when I started buying gear and they hold their value really well so my plan is that if I ever upgrade to FF I'll just sell my ef-s lenses (I have the 10-22mm and 60mm Macro also) and get some EF equivalents. I've recently upgraded to a 40d from a 400d and the lure of FF isn't really there like it was, the high ISO performance of the 40d is great and maybe if the replacement for the 5d brings really revolutionary changes then I might want to switch again, but I doubt it. You also have to consider the size of the prints you do, I had a picture from my 400d at ISO1600 printed at A3 and framed and it looked great, FF will let you go bigger than crop but you have to go pretty big.

However, I've found the 17-55mm such a good all-round lens that I think I'd want to see something like the 24-70mm F/2/8L get IS added to it before I changed to FF and even then it would be tough to part with the 17-55mm. You might read on some forums that people say that the 17-55mm build quality isn't on par with the L lenses, and that it can collect small amounts of dust inside. But from my experience having had the lens for about 6 months, I have no dust, and yes the feel of it isn't as solid as my L series lens but it's not cheap or shabby, far from it.

My vote is the 17-55mm.