Canon EOS lens decision: EF 24-105mmf/4L IS vs EF-S 17-55mmf/2.8IS for 300D

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Todd H. - 07 Aug 2006 17:54 GMT

I'm in the hunt for a high quality replacement for the kit lens (EF-S
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6) of my Canon 300D/Digital Rebel. I'm not thrilled
with the sharpness of the kit lens, and it's fairly limited for indoor
available light photography with its relatively small max aperture.

I'd like to solicit opinions on the following options I'm narrowed
down to. My periodic work for local band shows, and weddings is
prompting the upgrade. Part of my hesitation on some of these is the
projected longevity of the EF-S mount, and whether full frame digital
SLR's might come into my reach one day.

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Autofocus Lens for Select Digital Cameras.
This is my front-runner right now. $1149
Pros: f/2.8 and IS and good zoom range for my use. Wow.
This combo of features will be very handy in live
music lighting situations.
Cons: Not L series glass. Does this mean I won't see great
sharpeness? Won't work on FF cameras....but do I care? If
EF-S will be around a while, I don't. When I get a 2nd body,
it'll probably be a 30D or successor.

EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
pros: compatible with full frame, L series glass, long end
provides a lot of shooting flexibility
Cons: Not f2.8 for shallowest DoF, short end is relatively
long/poor for groups in tight spaces, and evidently pretty
lousy with vignetting when used full frame anyway, despite the
L glass.

Any options I'm missing? Does Sigma have offerings that I should be
considering? I got burned in the EOS film world with their otherwise
nice f/2.8 lenses (I have a 28-70 and 70-210 Sigma APO that I now
can't use with the digirebel since Canon changed their aperture
control algorithm cleverly in a way the Sigmas won't respond to, and
these are too old to be chip upgradeable). I have a leaning toward
Canon for this reason.

Thanks in advance for any experiences or opinions

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Reply to this Message

Bill - 07 Aug 2006 23:13 GMT

>I'd like to solicit opinions on the following options I'm narrowed
>down to. My periodic work for local band shows, and weddings is
>prompting the upgrade. Part of my hesitation on some of these is the
>projected longevity of the EF-S mount, and whether full frame digital
>SLR's might come into my reach one day.

Don't worry about the EF-S mount...as long as the FOV crop sensors
exist, the lenses are perfectly usable. Ten years from now, a working
camera and EF-S will still provide good performance - the lenses won't
stop working.

>EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Autofocus Lens for Select Digital Cameras.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=303

Have a look a the user reviews at Freds site as well as any product
reviews you can find. It sounds like it's pretty good, but not up to the
quality of something like the 16-35 f/2.8, but that's to be expected.

The IS will be helpful in low light too, and the zoom range is good.

>EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

Good lense, but if you're doing band shots you probably want as much
light as you can get, so an f/2.8 is the way to go.

Reply to this Message

AaronW - 08 Aug 2006 05:05 GMT

> I'm in the hunt for a high quality replacement for the kit lens (EF-S
> 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6) of my Canon 300D/Digital Rebel. I'm not thrilled
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Cons: Not L series glass. Does this mean I won't see great
> sharpeness?

There are many non-L lenses very sharp, even sharper than L.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1755_28/index.htm

> Won't work on FF cameras....but do I care? If
> EF-S will be around a while, I don't. When I get a 2nd body,
> it'll probably be a 30D or successor.

When 1.3x or 1x cameras are priced very close to 1.6x, you might want a
larger sensor for lower noise and higher resolution.

> EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
> pros: compatible with full frame, L series glass, long end
> provides a lot of shooting flexibility
> Cons: Not f2.8 for shallowest DoF

And not much brighter than your f/5.6, and dimmer than your f/3.5.

> short end is relatively
> long/poor for groups in tight spaces, and evidently pretty
> lousy with vignetting when used full frame anyway, despite the
> L glass.
>
> Any options I'm missing?

Canon 35/2
Canon 50/1.8
Canon 85/1.8

Canon 16-35/2.8
Canon 24-70/2.8
Canon 70-200/2.8 IS

For non-low-light:
Canon 20-35/3.5-4.5
Canon 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS

> Does Sigma have offerings that I should be
> considering? I got burned in the EOS film world with their otherwise
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> these are too old to be chip upgradeable). I have a leaning toward
> Canon for this reason.

And the better Sigma lenses are not that much cheaper, and still worse
quality than Canon.

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr

Reply to this Message