C100: 17-55 f/2.8 vs 24-105 f/4

H

Homey

Active member
Hello,

I was wondering which one of the two would be better overall. As far as focal distance is concerned the 17-55 would complement the Tokina 11-16 very well but the 24-105 is really more versatile (you could even pull a 70's karate movies zoom in :) ) and I could live with that 17-24 gap. On the other hand, would the 24-105 be too soft wide open as opposed to the other one which is 2.8? I am hesitant about f/4 since it's been a really long time I had anything less than 2.8. I love primes actually but really appreciate the versatility of 2.8 zooms. Downside is they are heavy!

Also, how does the 24-105 handle distortion? In full frame it has massive distortion but this is not full frame. The 17-55 is a lot sharper but build quality is not that great. Anyway, all the above reasons brought me to the point of asking people who have used and are using one or the other. What do you think?
 
Homey said:
The 17-55 is a lot sharper…
Click to expand...

I doubt you'd see much of a difference between the two in terms of sharpness. DxO has the 24-105 at 8MP on a 7D for stills and the 17-55 at 9MP. The C100 sensor is 8.8MP (4k) but then there's compression and the delivered file is only 2MP.

Between the two lenses you trade speed for focal length. That said, I find EF glass more useful than EF-S.

You might want to look at the new Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4. That should be a nice lens for the C100.
 
DxO has the 24-105 at 8MP on a 7D for stills and the 17-55 at 9MP. The C100 sensor is 8.8MP (4k)
Click to expand...

I never looked at it that way, I always look at the MTF charts. I forget that video isn't as demanding as photography, what with all the resolution and megapixels. I wouldn't go with Sigma on this one although it has a really appealing price tag. But what you said really puts this into perspective. The 24-105 is looking better now, especially since I can afford a stop of ISO with this cam.
 
Here is my .02

Both are great lenses, that being said I guess it depends on what you are shooting.

For indoors stuff the 17-55 is awesome - such a great range and it is light.

For outdoors stuff the 24-105 is pretty versatile, my only gripe is that it never seems to be long enough or wide enough. build quality is awesome and it is pretty parfocal, great run and gun lens.

Another gripe would be the 24-105 never seems to get as "sexy" as the 17-55.

If I had to pick one, I would go with the 17-55.

Sure, it feels plasticky and the damn focus ring is in the wrong spot but 55mm at 2.8 makes interviews look awesome and that gap between 24mm and 17mm makes all the difference.

Again, just my .02
 
I see. That's great info but I feel I haven't explained myself thoroughly. I have 4 Nikon G lenses, 2 primes (50, 28) and two zooms (24-70, 70-200). Those are the lenses I will be using for narrative, music videos (depending on style) and videos that are vfx intensive. But since I will be taking advantage of the versatility of the camera (main reason I chose it over the BMPC) by taking on run and gun jobs I will be needing fully compatible, EF lenses, IS too. So I decided to get the Tokina 11-16, which I've been wanting forever but I always had full frame bodies, and a more "normal" one. So basically, I need to decide on a lens for those applications and as you said the 24-105 is more versatile. I fear that 24mm, which is 36 in full frame terms won't be as wide as I would want to go in times but, the tele end is pretty good and besides, you can't have it all. If I would get another lens I would become a rental house! Now on to find the best lens adapter (come on people on MTF services, make one already!).
 
Tough decision. I got the 17-55 2.8 and hate the build quality. The focus and zoom are reversed. It's heavy. Zoom range really lacks when I need it and switching lenses is a pain.

BUT. Fantastic bokeh. Great contrast and superb IQ. Wide end makes me stop reaching for my 11-16 very often. In fact I think it may be time to sell it.

I'm happy with my choice but sometimes wish I had the 24-105. No easy solution.
 
Well being that this is in a C100 thread, I'll say that no Canon C100 should go without its partner in crime the 24-105.
 
Hey Homey!

I have both. I shoot corporates - Event Summaries and Event Candids. Very different.

The 24-105 is the lens my C100 wears when I am observing people and maybe asking them questions. At f5, it sharpens up quite a bit - as per expectations - and the C100 will allow a bit of gain to help the aperture.

I have to think about the action I'll be filming, do I want reactions of the audience (i.e. Candid) or to capture the detail of what's going on (Summary).

I also have a Tokina 11-16 and the Canon 70-200 f4. I have a selection of ScottEvests I habitually wear year roud which can take 3 lenses, so I can be shooting with the Tokina, the 17-55, the 24-105 and the 70--200. One of those lenses are ont the camera, the rest are in pockets. It's a great solution in theory, but I am thinking of the 18-200 or 18-135 - both have IS (mandatory for handheld), the latter promising continual AF when the new C100 software is out.

@Homey, the answer to your question is, regrettably, to own both. And more. The end game is not to cover every focal length with your 'variable prime' zooms, it's to be NOT caught changing lenses at the least appropriate moment. I guess that separates the Narrative shooters from the Event Videographers, but the C100 is an event tool first and foremost. Hence 'both' and then some/
 
The Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC is a fantastic lens for the C100. Great stabilization, nice and sharp and good color reproduction. I think it's an underrated option.
 
That's a lot of interesting opinions and I have to say that from what I'm gathering, regardless of my personal conundrum, the 24-105 is a winner here. Not just between the two mentioned in the topic but overall.

It just seems to be the best bang for the buck and the quality is close to its 2.8 contenders. Apart form that, Matt's post reminded me that it really comes down to one's style of shooting, needs aside. I prefer to be a little bit lighter when shooting events though, hence I'll pass on getting both.

no Canon C100 should go without its partner in crime the 24-105
Click to expand...

It should come as a fixed lens! There's your C50! :D Really though, you are right, they seem to be partners in crime.

@travis - I don't diss Tamron but my budget allows me to get Canon and I also like their design better.
 
Last edited:
MattDavis said:
Hey Homey!
I am thinking of the 18-200 or 18-135 - both have IS (mandatory for handheld), the latter promising continual AF when the new C100 software is out.
Click to expand...
Hi Matt, have you tried the 18-135 on your C100 and what do you think about image quality? I'm currently in a dilemma choosing the best zoom for travel/documentary (with no time to swap) but I can't find example of this lens on Cx00. Is the image enough sharp and how is the bokeh?
 
I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Vc2 which is great but I've noticed that I rarely use 2.8 as I've the camera set at iso850 in c-log. (Except in the darkest situstions) It's nice though because its wide at 17mm compared to the 24-105 but on the other hand it's short at 50mm.

As 5mars said the new 18-135 might be a great lens on the C100. I'm sure someone will try it out soon enough for us! ;)
 
Recently bought the 18-135, and it's a great range but it's not as sharp or punchy as L-Glass. Will get some pictures up as soon as possible (may have to be the chickens again) comparing at least to the 24-105.

I wasn't exactly blown away by the quality of the lens, but it's going to be just like the FS100/700's 18-200: the lens you take when you don't know what's happening next, or you can't change lenses. In use for about 5-10% of the time.

But the key is in the pictures. Gimme 24 hours.
 
Am I the only one who really didn't like the 24-105? Then again I really don't like shooting with zooms in general. I felt extremely uncreative with it. Its not wide enough and even though its long, wide open at f4 its tough to throw out distracting backgrounds too much. The 35mm f2 is a much more interesting lens for run and gun for me. The 24-105 is fairly sharp and thats about it. Sure the IS works good but i just hated using it. Breathes like crazy too. I've switched to keeping a very modest contax zeiss set (which you can get for very cheap), and then resorting to renting from lensrentals.com when I need zooms. Much more economical that way
 
MattRobertson said:
Am I the only one who really didn't like the 24-105? Then again I really don't like shooting with zooms in general. I felt extremely uncreative with it. Its not wide enough and even though its long, wide open at f4 its tough to throw out distracting backgrounds too much. The 35mm f2 is a much more interesting lens for run and gun for me. The 24-105 is fairly sharp and thats about it. Sure the IS works good but i just hated using it. Breathes like crazy too. I've switched to keeping a very modest contax zeiss set (which you can get for very cheap), and then resorting to renting from lensrentals.com when I need zooms. Much more economical that way
Click to expand...

I'm with you on not liking zooms but I've just ordered a 24-105 based on everyone raving about it on these forums. The fact that I picked up a new copy for just $750AU helped.

I'm building a really light rig with the zacuto target shooter for event run and gun work and with a light on board I may be able to get away with the 24-105mm f4 for nightclubs/weddings where sometimes you cannot freely walk around. Also I was interested in having less facial distortion by being able to go >35mm, especially when interviewing people head on.

Hopefully it turns out alright otherwise I'll just return to the 35mm f2 IS!
 
I have the Sigma 17-55 and while I barley like it (it's not a great video lens due to the focus ring) I find that it just doesn't have what I need more often than not. I'm always zooming in and wanting just more reach much more than I want a little more wide on the 24-105.
 
I think only downside on 17-55 is the s*%tty focus ring . And 24105 tends to pull itself out when filming high angle
 
the IS on the 24-105 makes it the obvious choice IMO. you can handhold the C100 all day long with that lens attached. a great combo. still i have all the other wider options but of course with no IS.

david
 
Curnsie said:
I'm sure someone will try it out soon enough for us! ;)
Click to expand...

Here you go... fresh outta the box (so this is a 'back yard' personal test, not a PB style 'technical art for the benefit of the community' test, so please bear with me regarding subject matter):


So, bit of a disappointment. Think the non-constant aperture of the f4 24-105 was upsetting? The 18-135 is tweaking your iris and focus throughout the zoom range, even when 'set' to 6.3 (to iron out the usual 3.5 to 5.6 variance throughout the zoom range).

It means you can't sneak a zoom into your shots, and focus does feel a bit weird - back to 'no end stops' and lots of spinning the ring. Sure, the range is useful, the lens isn't horrible optically - to my eye it's better than the Sony 18-200 - but ergonomically it sucks just a little too much for a video lens.

I think it's intended for, and far better with, a T2i/550D 'Dad-cam' rather than pro video use. That's one more tick for the 24-105 and 17-55 combo. Sigh.
 
Ouaaaa!! Thank you so much for this complet test Matt.
Very interesting! I thilk the image is "enough" good for the range but .. mmmh I'll perhaps go for the expensive combo! (24mm for the 24-105 seems wide enough for me, compared to 18 for the 18-135)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top