Advice: 10-22 + 24-105 or 17-55 ? (600D)

cpsimit · 27 Sep 2012 at 13:25

Having got into photography as a hobby I'm now wanting to invest in some decent lenses but I have been stuck trying to decide between two for awhile; the 17-55 and 24-105 (to go with a 10-22). If I'm going to spend a fair bit of money on lenses I just want to make sure I make the right choice.

Here's my thoughts so far...

Pros for 24-105:

- Build quality
- Focal range
- Can be used If I ever go full frame (that's if)
- Would be a better combination with the 10-22

Cons for 24-105:

- Not very wide on a 600D
- F/4 isn't great for indoor
- Not as sharp as the 17-55

Pros for 17-55:

- Image quality
- Fast F/2.8
- Good for indoors/ low light
- Wide enough for landscapes

Cons for 17-55:

- Build quality
- Same focal range as my kit lens
- Focal range crosses with 10-22
- Is F/2.8 that much different?

Any advice/experience?

dannyjo22 · 27 Sep 2012 at 13:44

What's wrong with the build quality of the 17-55? On a crop it's a no contest with the 24-105. 17-55 every time. Image quality and 2.8 wins out for my usage. 24mm wouldn't be wide enough for any landscape work I did and would mean I then needed a 10-22 to fill the gap.

If your thinking of going FF then maybe but I'd still look at a second hand 24-70 rather than 24-105, which really is master of nothing other than being a kit lens to lob with a FF camera.

cpsimit · 27 Sep 2012 at 14:01

dannyjo22 said:
What's wrong with the build quality of the 17-55? On a crop it's a no contest with the 24-105. 17-55 every time. Image quality and 2.8 wins out for my usage. 24mm wouldn't be wide enough for any landscape work I did and would mean I then needed a 10-22 to fill the gap.

If your thinking of going FF then maybe but I'd still look at a second hand 24-70 rather than 24-105, which really is master of nothing other than being a kit lens to lob with a FF camera.

I wouldn't say anything is wrong with the build quality, it just doesn't feel as solid as the 24-105 that's all. Plus I've read about dust issues, not too sure how much of a problem it is.

No plan of going FF for now but just trying to future proof myself if I'm spending that kind of money on a lens I guess.

With regards to the 10-22, I'm buying that lens as well anyway but I'd rather not have to swap between lenses every two minutes if you know what I mean.

dannyjo22 · 27 Sep 2012 at 14:20

cpsimit said:
I wouldn't say anything is wrong with the build quality, it just doesn't feel as solid as the 24-105 that's all. Plus I've read about dust issues, not too sure how much of a problem it is.

It's not an issue at all. You get dust in every single lens. Only if it was on the front element and I was buying new would I care and that's being picky. Take an LED torch and shine it through a sealed lens and you will still see dust even on a brand new lens.

a1ex2001 · 27 Sep 2012 at 15:57

on a crop get a second hand 17-55mm f2.8 is you will love it while you have it as it is simply fantastic and loose very little when you sell it as these hold their value brilliantly.

The 24-105mm is a bit too much of an inbettween lens on a crop it's not quite a walk about and not quite a fast lense and not quite a portrait special. You get the impression had I had one on a crop I would have been forever swapping for something wider or faster.

Don't believe all the hype about 17mm not being wide enough for landscapes thats about a 27mm full frame equivalent which is wide enough to get an awful lot into shot after all 28mm was the classic wide angle and while technology has changed great pictures haven't. Yes wider can be nicer but you have to be very very careful with compositions to keep them interesting.

Vertigo · 27 Sep 2012 at 18:38

dannyjo22 said:
What's wrong with the build quality of the 17-55?

dannyjo22 said:
It's not an issue at all. You get dust in every single lens.

To be fair, the build quality of the 24-105, or indeed any L lens, is in a different league to the 17-55. Also, whilst true that you'll eventually get dust in all lenses, the 17-55 is known for this issue and does attract far more dust than most others.

I had a 17-55 and loved it, but switched to a 24-70. I already had the 10-22 at that point, or I wouldn't have switched as 24mm isn't wide enough on a crop a lot of the time.

I had no issues with the image quality of the 17-55. The main reason I upgraded was for weather sealing and the improved build quality of the 24-70. It is a different lens to the 24-105 mind so not a direct comparison with your situation - I had to sacrifice the IS of the 17-55 whereas you'd have to sacrifice the extra stop.

In addition to the pros and cons you've listed, as I said above the 24-105 is weather sealed if that matters to you. The 24-105 & 10-22 combo would be far more expensive but I'd go that way if you can afford it. It gives you far more range, with twice the reach at the long end and the benefit of ultra-wide when needed (10mm is a different world to 17mm). It also stands you in good stead if you go FF at a later date.

mrk · 27 Sep 2012 at 21:00

I owned the 17-55 for some time since release and I sent it in once, mid ownership, to Fixation for servicing as the IS servos failed and at the same time got them to clean the dust from the inside.

I've had many Canon EF/EF-s lenses over the years and only the 17-55 accumulated the most dust on the inside of the front element although those dust bits didn't affect image quality at all. It was and still remains the sharpest lens I have ever used. It is only 2nd to the tack sharp 70-200 f4 IS L I had and was sharper than the current 17-40 L I have.

I really wish that lens wasn't an EF-s lens because I'd never have let it go

Likewise the 10-22 is equally sharp.

Crafty · 27 Sep 2012 at 21:20

10-22 & 24-105, but I would say that, I own them, 7D body.

When I had a kit lens on my 450D 55mm was forever too short, I bought a 55-250 (best budget lens evah!) but then found I was always swapping between the two.
I used a friend's 24-105, it just worked out nicely as a walk around and cut down the need to swap lenses all the time.
I don't buy the "its not wide enough" thing for a walk around, I've never struggled.
The good thing is there are loads of these around, I bought a brand new one as a "white box", which means it came with a 5D Mk2 as a kit lens, £600. Bargain.

10-22 is a great lens, no worries there.

As an alternative, budget option I'd suggest considering the 15-85 too. Its still EF-S but might just be wide enough and still be long enough for a walk around, granted its a bit slow at the long end but for £500 it might tell you what you do/don't want or like and then you could sell it on and buy the expensive stuff a bit later.. for example if you did do full frame you might look to the 17-40 and a 70-200 ? who knows. My Dad has a poorly kit lens right now so I've suggested this as a hop up, both IQ and focal range wise.

mrk · 27 Sep 2012 at 21:24

optically the 15-85 is supposed to be rather excellent! The IS may make up for the slower aperture but IMO at that kind of range I'd want at least a constant aperture so not have to worry about a changing shutter speed in AV.

Vertigo · 27 Sep 2012 at 22:02

mrk said:
I owned the 17-55 for some time since release and I sent it in once, mid ownership, to Fixation for servicing as the IS servos failed and at the same time got them to clean the dust from the inside.

I've had many Canon EF/EF-s lenses over the years and only the 17-55 accumulated the most dust on the inside of the front element although those dust bits didn't affect image quality at all. It was and still remains the sharpest lens I have ever used. It is only 2nd to the tack sharp 70-200 f4 IS L I had and was sharper than the current 17-40 L I have.

I really wish that lens wasn't an EF-s lens because I'd never have let it go

I'm glad you did though! (yes I bought it from you if I remember correctly)

mrk · 27 Sep 2012 at 22:15

Oh damn! So it was

Good to see you had a good experience with it too

cpsimit · 28 Sep 2012 at 09:46

Crafty said:
10-22 & 24-105, but I would say that, I own them, 7D body.

When I had a kit lens on my 450D 55mm was forever too short, I bought a 55-250 (best budget lens evah!) but then found I was always swapping between the two.
I used a friend's 24-105, it just worked out nicely as a walk around and cut down the need to swap lenses all the time.
I don't buy the "its not wide enough" thing for a walk around, I've never struggled.
The good thing is there are loads of these around, I bought a brand new one as a "white box", which means it came with a 5D Mk2 as a kit lens, £600. Bargain.

10-22 is a great lens, no worries there.

As an alternative, budget option I'd suggest considering the 15-85 too. Its still EF-S but might just be wide enough and still be long enough for a walk around, granted its a bit slow at the long end but for £500 it might tell you what you do/don't want or like and then you could sell it on and buy the expensive stuff a bit later.. for example if you did do full frame you might look to the 17-40 and a 70-200 ? who knows. My Dad has a poorly kit lens right now so I've suggested this as a hop up, both IQ and focal range wise.

Don't confuse me anymore! lol

I did look at possibly getting the 15-85 just to see which end I'd use more before investing in some decent lenses like you said.

Before selling my 18-55 kit lens I found myself using the shorter end rather than the longer but then a few times I went out with just my 50mm which made me have to use my feet more and be a bit more creative with what I took a picture of. I'm hoping having the longer end of the 24-105 will do the same.

My main concern with the 17-55, other than the dust issue, is having the same (boring) focal length as my kit lens, be it a lot sharper. And my main worry about the 24-105 is whether F/4 will be that bad for indoor and if I'll notice losing that little bit of focal range off the bottom end.

Grrrr, can't make a decision :-/

Cheers for the advice thus far though!

Crafty · 28 Sep 2012 at 13:50

f4 is pushing it in low light indoors. High ISO, expose to the right and you'll recover them in post processing. Don't expect miracles though. If it is too dark you can always use the 50mm.
If you end up doing lots of indoor work, even with f2.8 you'll want a flash, if only to balance out highlights/shadows. I've a 430EXII and managed to do some stuff for a friend's wedding reception - results were no where near professional (my fault!) but would have been lost without the flash given the dark hall.

Nexus · 28 Sep 2012 at 14:38

Crafty said:
I used a friend's 24-105, it just worked out nicely as a walk around and cut down the need to swap lenses all the time.
I don't buy the "its not wide enough" thing for a walk around, I've never struggled.

I've got to agree with you on that, I think people who say that have never used the 24-105.

The 24-105 was my general purpose lens on my 7D most of the time. It is great as a walkabout lens, infact when I went on a trip to Venice I used it pretty much the whole time and it was brilliant.

I will admit that it is a different lens now when I use it on my 5D, but its really the wide end that changes. That said, the wide end is really only useful for landscapes and where you are really close to your subject, at 24mm you can get some distortion too, so not ideal. On a crop, the telephoto end is obviously closer to a nice portrait focal length.

24mm on a crop works out to about 38mm which is close enough to 35mm and still gives you the popular 50mm range covered by it too. So I think it covers you for a great range on a crop. Of course it ultimately comes down to what kind of shooter you are, if you are only interested in taking landscapes, then a wider lens makes sense.