17-55mm f/2.8 IS to 24-105mm f/4L

ChrisD.

ChrisD.

ChrisD.

Man of Honour
Joined
20 Sep 2006
Posts
35,466
Just put an order in for a 5D Mk III and 24-105mm f/4L. I'm upgrading from a 60D with the rather superb 17-55 f/2.8 on it.

I'm slightly worried that I'll miss being able to stop down so low. Should I consider spending a lot extra and getting the 24-70mm f/2.8L II instead or would I be satisfied with the 24-105mm? It's a lot of money exra though. Just wondering if anyone has done the same move.

I do like the 18-55, but I really fancy trying out FF.

Other lenses I have and use is the nifty fifty f/1.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.
 
Last edited:
The 24-70 is a better lens than the 24-105. Even the mk1 is better than the 24-105.

Whether you will miss the 2.8 depends how often you shoot at 2.8. You might end up liking the 105mm.

Personally I would get the 24-70.
 
I like doing down to 2.8, bokeh is something I like doing and I understand FF will add to this effect compared to the 60D.

Hmm, need to think.
 
I've recently done something similar, though I've gone Nikon D5100 to D600 and 18-105mm to 24-70 2.8.

F/4 on a full frame is equivalent to f/2.5 on a crop. F/2.8 on a FF is equivalent to a f/1.8 on a crop. Which is awesome, I didn't realise that.

f/2.8 on a crop is the equivalent to f/4.5 on FF.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

I'd go with the 24-70 to get the best possible effect of upgrading to FF.
 
Raymond Lin said:
The 24-70 is a better lens than the 24-105. Even the mk1 is better than the 24-105.

Whether you will miss the 2.8 depends how often you shoot at 2.8. You might end up liking the 105mm.

Personally I would get the 24-70.
Click to expand...

This is what I did - moved from the 17-55 to the 24-70 even before I had a FF body.

My main reasons were the lack of weather sealing and less than stellar build quality of the 17-55, plus an intention to go FF at some point anyway.

It's arguable you won't miss the f/2.8 as f/4 on FF will provide a very similar effective DoF to f/2.8 on crop and the ISO/noise performance of the 5D3 is at least a stop better anyway.

But, as Ray says, the 24-70 is the better lens. It may lack the ultimate reach of the 24-105 and doesn't have IS but it's better optically, distorts less at the wide and and is a stop faster.

FWIW, I've never missed the IS since I switched, if that's a concern to you.
 
im also considering the upgrade from 24-105 to 24-70 mk2

though i really like the 24-105, its a great work horse lens, light, good reach and has done me very well...

decisions decisions.
 
danoliver1 said:
Iam sure f2.8 on a crop gives the same dof as f5.6 on full frame, i think Raymond will know the exact numbers.
Click to expand...

F/2.8 on crop gives roughly f/4.0 on full frame so going from the 17-55mm f/2.8 lens on crop to 24-105 f/4.0 hasn't lost any capabilities but also has improved the situation notably.
If you are going full frame then get the 24-70mm f/2.8, it just doesn't make sense at this focal length to do anything else.
 
My bank balance didn't think so.

I will be getting it tomorrow, so will play around with it on my 60D.

The 5D is on back order. :(
 
Lol, know that one thing, you have arguably the best 24-70 lens money can buy. On a FF camera it'll blow your mind, the AF speed is great, its sharp, it's just an awesome lens.
 
Raymond Lin said:
UV? I go with B+W F-Pro or their MRC nano coated. It's brass mount.

That or Hoya Pro Digital.
Click to expand...

I have both those. I got the Hoya one as the company I bought my recent lens from had only those in stock. Doesn't seem to be much difference, although the B+W one feels MUCH more solid to me. And I've just realised I left it on the side on Friday and it's covered in muck now. Bah :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom