# looking for equivalent to efs 17-55 f/2.8 in EF line



## slynch1701 (Oct 23, 2012)

I am looking at buying my wife the 5D mkII to upgrade from the 40D. She currently has the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 w/image stabilizer that she loves to use. Of course that doesn't work on the 5D. What is the best to use that is closest to this performance wise that is compatible with the 5D?

Thanks,

Sean


----------



## Z (Oct 23, 2012)

The 24-105 f/4.

At a glance the f/4 figure will seem like a downgrade from the f/2.8 of the 17-55, but the short answer is the full frame sensor will more than compensate for the smaller max aperture.

Neuro will probably be along in a mo to explain exactly why. The technical details escape me


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 23, 2012)

The FF equivalent of the 17-55mm f/2.8 is a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 lens. So, compared to the 17-55 on APS-C, the 24-105 on FF is wider, longer, and the aperture is 1.3 stops wider in terms of DoF for the same framing. Yes, it's still f/4 for exposure, but the FF sensor also has at least 1.3 stops less ISO noise (more like 1.5 going from 40D to 5DII), so you can bump the ISO to make up the stop and still be ahead on noise. Overall IQ of the 24-105 on FF is better than the 17-55 on APS-C, and you keep IS. The only thing you're giving up is the activation of the f/2.8-sensitive center AF point.


----------



## Ryan708 (Oct 23, 2012)

Z said:


> The 24-105 f/4.
> 
> At a glance the f/4 figure will seem like a downgrade from the f/2.8 of the 17-55, but the short answer is the full frame sensor will more than compensate for the smaller max aperture.
> 
> Neuro will probably be along in a mo to explain exactly why. The technical details escape me



Haha, good call. Neuro's thoughts are exactly why I want to move to FF. I want an L class standard lens with IS, and an L class ultrawide, thats not too horrible on distortion. Thinking of 17-40 (when not an UWA will be a standard on 60d backup) and a 24-105L. Waiting on some reviews of the 6d before I choose a body. Id love a 5DMkIII but that won't be happening :-/


----------



## daniemare (Oct 24, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> The FF equivalent of the 17-55mm f/2.8 is a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 lens. So, compared to the 17-55 on APS-C, the 24-105 on FF is wider, longer, and the aperture is 1.3 stops wider in terms of DoF for the same framing. Yes, it's still f/4 for exposure, but the FF sensor also has at least 1.3 stops less ISO noise (more like 1.5 going from 40D to 5DII), so you can bump the ISO to make up the stop and still be ahead on noise. Overall IQ of the 24-105 on FF is better than the 17-55 on APS-C, and you keep IS. The only thing you're giving up is the activation of the f/2.8-sensitive center AF point.



Thanks Neuro, answering my question even before I asked it as I am also considering the 6D and my most used lens is the Sigma 17-50 OS HSM


----------



## Act444 (Oct 24, 2012)

It's blowing my mind how much better the 24-105 seems to be when mounted on the 5DIII as opposed to my 60D (or the T2i I had before)...it's like I unleashed its full potential. 

I mean, it was still a decent lens on the 60D...but it just seems to come alive on the 5D. such a strange feeling...I've heard people on this forum and elsewhere rave about it and went ??? ...but now I understand...

____________

Anyway, having used the 17-55 pretty extensively on the 60D, I'd say the 5D with 24-105 is definitely a step up in quality, if you're in good light. In low light I'd consider the required raising of ISO to be more or less an equalizer in terms of quality. I find 60D 3200 = 5D 6400 for instance. 5D's 6400 probably still maintains a slight edge in my opinion, but you'd really have to view at 100% to tell a difference.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 24, 2012)

Act444 said:


> It's blowing my mind how much better the 24-105 seems to be when mounted on the 5DIII as opposed to my 60D (or the T2i I had before)...it's like I unleashed its full potential.
> 
> I mean, it was still a decent lens on the 60D...but it just seems to come alive on the 5D. such a strange feeling...I've heard people on this forum and elsewhere rave about it and went ??? ...but now I understand...
> 
> ...


 
Most find the 24-105 a bit better on a crop. Assuming, that is, that its a crop with AFMA fine tuning the autofocus.
I love my 24-105mm L on both my crop and FF bodies, its one of the few FF lenses that are supurb on crop bodies as well as FF.


----------



## vuilang (Oct 24, 2012)

why not the 24-70 2.8?
i can see the f2.8 from apc-h sensor is roughly equivalent to f4 in dof view. but.. why not 24-70 2.8?


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 24, 2012)

vuilang said:


> why not the 24-70 2.8?
> i can see the f2.8 from apc-h sensor is roughly equivalent to f4 in dof view. but.. why not 24-70 2.8?



No IS.


----------



## friedmud (Oct 24, 2012)

The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is getting really good reviews. It's about the same (effective) focal length, had IS (VC), same max aperture and even about the same price.

I would give it a look.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 24, 2012)

I have heard ambiguous statements about the VC version of Tamron 24-70mm. Would be interested to hear first-hand opinions. Quite hard to get hold of one locally to try unless you commit to buy, unfortunately.


----------



## Halfrack (Oct 24, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> I have heard ambiguous statements about the VC version of Tamron 24-70mm. Would be interested to hear first-hand opinions. Quite hard to get hold of one locally to try unless you commit to buy, unfortunately.


Or rent...

https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/normal-range/tamron-24-70mm-f2.8-di-vc-for-canon


----------



## slynch1701 (Oct 24, 2012)

Thanks for the info everyone.


Sean


----------



## joshmurrah (Oct 24, 2012)

Another vote for the 24-105 f/4L.

It's f/4 but but your "output"/image from this lens and FF will be the same as your crop and 17-55.

The 24-105 has IS, which you'll expect, whereas the 24-70 II doesn't.

Finally, the 24-70 II costs WAY more than either of these two, which in my mind puts it in a seperate class.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 24, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > It's blowing my mind how much better the 24-105 seems to be when mounted on the 5DIII as opposed to my 60D (or the T2i I had before)...it's like I unleashed its full potential.
> ...



I agree that it's a great lens on both types of cameras. 

I will say that the 60D perhaps can get better _all-around_ performance out of the 24-105 because you don't get the distortion at 24mm nor the soft corners at f4...

on the 5D, to ME at least, it becomes a much more versatile lens because 1) it goes wide, making it usable indoors 2) I find IQ around the center to be much better, 3) its superior high ISO capability makes f4 less of a crutch in low-light situations.


----------



## JBeckwith (Oct 27, 2012)

Ryan708 said:


> Z said:
> 
> 
> > The 24-105 f/4.
> ...


I would go with a 5D II over the 6D. It's cheaper and still an _excellent_ camera.


----------

