thinking about the Canon 24-105mm L IS

Psilonaught · 28 Feb 2006 at 16:32

just returned from a business trip to NYC and as usual have been dissapointed by the 17mm performance of this 17-85mm lens - just too soft

I am now thinking about flogging it and getting a 24-105 L

Anyone got experience of this lens? Have used a 28mm before and it wasn't wide enough, but 24mm is pretty wide I think and I might not miss 17 that much

hoodmeister · 28 Feb 2006 at 17:01

the difference between 17 & 24 mm is pretty big. How much do you tend to use the wide end of your lens?

awfuk shots, but I just stuck my hand out the window and nabbed these :

17mm

24mm

Having said that, i'd be inclined to take a slightly longer, but better quality lens over a wider but softer one. Hmmm.

How much do you use the long end? Perhaps you can look at something decent, but a touch wider?

SDK^ · 28 Feb 2006 at 17:58

Psilonaught said:
Have used a 28mm before and it wasn't wide enough, but 24mm is pretty wide I think and I might not miss 17 that much

Remember, if you are using a 300D, 350D, 10D, 20D then you need to take the 1.6x crop factor into consideration.
Therefore :
17mm = 27mm
24mm = 38mm

Richard T · 28 Feb 2006 at 18:01

What about the Canon 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS USM?

Stoopid! Stoopid! Stoopid! Stoopid! Stoopid! Stoopid!

Dumbass!!

SDK^ · 28 Feb 2006 at 18:13

ashtray_head said:
What about the Canon 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS USM?

LOL, read his first post

See below

Psilonaught said:
just returned from a business trip to NYC and as usual have been dissapointed by the 17mm performance of this 17-85mm lens - just too soft

Richard T · 28 Feb 2006 at 19:42

SDK^ said:
LOL, read his first post
See below

ah right.... there no mention of IS are the lenses the same apart from IS?

Sleepyd · 28 Feb 2006 at 19:59

If it were me I'd wait until reviews of the EF-s 17-55 F2.8 IS start appearing.

Geffen · 28 Feb 2006 at 20:04

While the specs of the EF-s 17-55 F2.8 IS look good it seem vastly over price at a RRP £860. At that sort of price level you would probably be better looking at EF16-35mm f2.8 L USM £950 or the EF 17-40mm f4 L USM at £500.

AdWright · 28 Feb 2006 at 20:06

ashtray_head said:
ah right.... there no mention of IS are the lenses the same apart from IS?

Is there a 17-85 Canon lens without IS?

Also, Psilonaught's sig kinda gives it away!

Richard T · 28 Feb 2006 at 20:28

AdWright said:
Is there a 17-85 Canon lens without IS?

Also, Psilonaught's sig kinda gives it away!

Ok, ok i'm stoopid!!

me gets coat to go to the opticians!!..................................................................

Psilonaught · 1 Mar 2006 at 22:37

Geffen said:
While the specs of the EF-s 17-55 F2.8 IS look good it seem vastly over price at a RRP £860.

it can't be that much surely?! From the FM reviews I have seen, the Tamron 24-135mm SP actually scores higher than the L glass :eek:

Doesn't have IS though and would miss that. Having looked at my pics from a recent trip to the Lakes i mostly used 22mm+ and only a handfull at 17mm

SDK^ · 1 Mar 2006 at 22:52

The new Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS will retail for around £820. Remember it's a constant 2.8 with image stabiliser and has fast USM focus.

The ratings on FM are there as a rough guide, people rate lens 'a' with how it compares against lens 'b' and 'c' in their collection. Not everyone has access to every lens available

Psilonaught · 1 Mar 2006 at 22:55

agreed but every single review on both FM and other sites i have seen really rate the Tamron.

Anyway next time i go out will make a note to not go below 24mm with my Canon and see if i miss it or not, this is probably the best way to tell!