[daveb975]

I have recently upgraded from a 400D to a 40D, and this has made me think again about changing my main lens.

I have got a Canon 17-85IS, which I found to be soft on the 400D. Having used it on the 40D, it seems to exhibit the same characteristics.

All of my other lenses seem much sharper. I have got the following:

Canon 10-22
Canon 50 1.8
Canon 70-300IS
Tamron 90 Macro

I am happy with all of these lenses, but would like something that would stay on the camera most of the time. Because of this, I am drawn to the Canon 24-105, as I probably shoot 80% of my pictures in this range.

The current cashback offer from Canon make the faster (but heavier) 24-70 a very attractive proposition as well, even though it would mean changing to my 70-300 for the longer shots.

I have heard a lot of good things about the 17-55IS as well, but I am concerned that I will end up changing to my 70-300 too often.

I would appreciate views on these lenses, and any other recommendations of lenses that may fit my needs.

[stevegreen]

I use the 24-105f/4 as my 'walkabout' lens and have never looked back. In my case the limitations of a 24-70mm would be too much as I find the extra 35mm really useful, but you have to temper that with the fact that this is also the longest lens I own. Personally if you can live with the f/4 limitations then the 24-105 is a cracking lens.

[Jonny1973]

I use a Sigma 17-70 f2.8 as my main lens although I have got a Canon 24-135 IS which I found a bit too bulky and 24 isn't wide enough for me on a 400d with the cropped sensor.

[allymac123]

I've got pretty much an identical set of lenses and have the 17-55 F2.8 IS as a walkabout. It's a stunning lens and great for low light. I used to use it all the time for low light and landscapes but those uses have now in a way been handed over to the 50 1.4 and 10-22 which I didn't have when I purchased it. I now find I shoot very little with it at the wide end but quite alot at the 55mm end.

This is seriously making me consider changing it for the 24-105 F4L. True I'd miss the F2.8 aperture quite a bit and I also wouldn't really be gaining much as I could use my 70-300 to get me the range. But I'm not a massive fan of my 70-300 so maybe the 24-105 would be ideal or maybe if I had a 70-200 F4L IS then that would solve my needs?

Just my stream of thought if any of it helps you out.

As it stands unless I can swap my 17-55 for a 24-105 for no cost then I'll probably just keep it.

[salubrious_k]

I have the 17-40 which I love and I don't find the lack of length limiting, but then again I haven't had the chance to use a 24-105.

Looking at your lens collection I think the 24-105 would compliment it perfectly, but I think that for landscapes you would be swapping fairly often to the 10-22 (another lens I wish I owned! Must resist though, I'm saving up for a full frame so it would be silly)

[daveb975]

Thanks for all of these replies. It seems that the 24-105 is the popular choice, and this fits in with my original thinking.

I only got the 10-22 this week, and have not really used it properly yet, but the shots I have taken indicate that I will get quite a lot of use out of it.

I am a bit concerned that I will be swapping between the 10-22 and the 24-105 quite a lot for wide shots. It is a shame there is not a 17-105! I have used the wide end on my 17-85 quite a lot, but I think I will be using it less now I have the 10-22.

My only other concern is that if I am spending this much money, I would quite like to get something with F2.8 for indoor/low light shots. I use the 50 F1.8 for this at the moment, but it would be handy to have a zoom.

I guess that I will have to compromise on one aspect, so it is just deciding which one. At the moment, the extra reach of the 24-105 makes it favourite.

[Steve Zissou]

I love my Sigma 17-70. It's sharp as hell and I RARELY find myself wanting something longer. If I do, it's only 15 seconds or so to whack the 70-300IS on in any case

[allie5]

Im in exactly the same position with a similar set of lenses (except an UWA - which makes replacing the 17-85 even harder!). I too find the 17-85 soft, although results can be improved in P'shop, I find I have to do much less PP to pictures taken with my 70-300IS or the 50mm prime.

Ive pondered for awhile whether to replace this lens but have never found a satisfactory "one lens" solution. The answer seems to be the 24-105L (and you are at least catered for at the wide end with your 10-22 - Id need two lenses to replace the 17-85!) although reviews for the 24-105 seem varied and its also regarded by some as soft.

I pray for the day that Canon release a decent quality 18-200IS! I do tend to shoot with whats on the camera and only change lenses occasionally - having 3 or more lenses cover 10-300 is a pain in the backside...especially when on a shoot that requires different focal lengths frequently. I guess if you go out to shoot something specific, like landscapes its not much bother, but I tend to do a lot of travel photography or stuff on the go (with 3 small children usually in tow!) so changing lenses frequently just isnt practical. For that reason, the 17-85IS is still my only walkabout option for now.

Its not a BAD lens, and after some basic PP the results are usually more than adequate. Ive also found that after a few months of use, I can now work round its foibles a bit too.

[dave_bass5]

Ive been using a 17-55IS since Jan this year and love it but just recently i have started to miss my old 24-105L. I find im hitting 55mm a lot these days and am now thinking of getting rid of the 17-55IS for another 24-105L.
Having f/4 would be a limitation IMO as im now used to f/2.8 but having 56-105mm would be very useful. I also have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 so that would cover the wider end still.
I was considering the 24-70 f/2.8 but i would miss IS too much.

[jonnypb]

depends on what you want to spend! I got the Sigma 17-70 over the Canon 17-85IS as the Sigma is optically better and the pics are sharper. the 17-85 is more like a kit lens with IS

With your lens setup I'd go for the 24-105 I think

[salubrious_k]

As a cheaper option to the 17-55 IS, you could consider the Tamron 17-50. A friend of mine bought it and he loves it

[richard plumb]

more love for the 24-105 here. I couple it with a sigma 10-20 for the short end, and the canon 70-300IS at the long end.

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by salubrious_k

As a cheaper option to the 17-55 IS, you could consider the Tamron 17-50. A friend of mine bought it and he loves it

Good suggestion.

Personally I do prefer a 17mm start on a crop body over 24mm..

[stevegreen]

Originally Posted by Radiohead

Personally I do prefer a 17mm start on a crop body over 24mm..

I agree that it is nice to have that extra width but it always seems to come with a compromise on the long end which is unfortunate.

17-50mm just wouldn't do at all for me as a general 'walkabout' lens and as Dave has said above, though he liked the lens he finds he hits the end of it's zoom regularly. Having said that, some people will shoot prime only, something that i tried one day whilst on holiday and thoroughly enjoyed by the way so masses of zoom maybe isn't that important afterall.

I suppose it all depends on your shooting style and of course, you will always adjust to what you have available in focal length terms.

I'm musing the subject, ignore me

[dave_bass5]

So who wants to swap a 17-55IS for a 24-105L then

Im quite happy shooting with primes as well if thats all i have with me but sometimes i do find it restricting. I guess i use a zoom more for the unexpected shots. Its nice to know what type of thing you are going to shoot but as a general walkabout when im out with the kids etc long is better than wide for me.
IQ on the 17-55IS is better than the 24-105L and f/2.8 is great but having too little reach is starting to bug me now.

[Tobers]

I'd get the 24-105 if I were you as you have the lower end already covered. Also, you just know that you'll have the 24-105 for when you get a 5D, whereas you'd have to flog the 17-55.

The 17-55 is an awesome lens but I just dont think you'd need it with the 10-22 you've already got. The 24-105 has got IS so you can keep things sorted in low light pretty well. You can always bump the ISO which is meant to be pretty noise-free on your 40D.

[daveb975]

That is another consideration. I am delighted with the 40D, and I think it is a long time before I will go full frame, but if I do, it would be nice not to lose another lens as well as the 10-22!