# Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS vs 24-105 f/4L IS



## Videoshooter (Aug 23, 2012)

Hi all, 

I've just upgraded to the Canon 5DmkII and sold my 550D. I'm still keeping my 60D which will now go from being my A-camera to my B-camera. I've still got some budget to spend on lenses to shoot video, and was originally planning on getting a 17-55 f/2.8 IS to replace my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. My main reason for upgrading is to get IS. Now I'm leaning towards keeping the 17-50 and adding a Canon 24-105, for the extra reach (espescially on the 60D) and the fact that it can be used on both cameras (and any future Canon cameras). I'm not interested in the 24-70 I or II due to (a) the price; and (b) no IS. 

What I'd like to know is what real-life effect it will have on the quality of my videos. Everything I've read suggests the high ISO performance of the mkII gives a 1-stop advantage over the APS-C cameras; does this mean that shooting with the f/4 on the 5dmkII will give similar IQ to shooting with f/2.8 on the 60D, if all else is equal? Can I push the ISO of the 5dmkII further than on the 60D to compentate for the 1-stop aperture loss?


----------



## jsbraby (Aug 23, 2012)

If you are considering the 24-105L for video you should be aware of two things. The lens is not parfocal (as you zoom, the focus distance changes) and the lens breathes (focal length changes while focusing). A lot. Neither issue is particularly problematic for stills shooters, but can be a real problem for video.

If you can work around those two issues, the 24-105L is a perfectly decent lens for video, although I often find myself cursing the relatively small aperture. I never had good luck with video once I got over ISO 800 on my 5d2 while shooting video; it got noisy in what I thought was unattractive ways. And I preferred to be at ISO 400 or slower.


----------



## preppyak (Aug 23, 2012)

jsbraby said:


> I never had good luck with video once I got over ISO 800 on my 5d2 while shooting video; it got noisy in what I thought was unattractive ways. And I preferred to be at ISO 400 or slower.


That's because you don't want to use the standard ISO's for video; you want to work exclusively in multiples of 160. So ISO 160/320/640/800/1600...which doesn't leave you much room after ISO 800. But, ISO 640 will look better than ISO 100. http://www.petapixel.com/2011/05/02/use-iso-numbers-that-are-multiples-of-160-when-shooting-dslr-video/

The 24-105 will be great if a lot of what you shoot is outdoors, but, its going to be unusable indoors on your 60D, and limited on the 5dII. I guess it depends a lot on what you shoot, but generally speaking, you are better off using low-light primes for flexibility with video, and either having a rig or a tripod involved.

The IS is certainly nice to have if you're shooting a lot of run and gun stuff, but, you'll have to decide if it limits you too much.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Aug 23, 2012)

I have the 24-105 and I've used it on my 60D for video. It works ok... and yes you should use ISO speeds that are multiples of 160. I eventually ended getting a 35mm 1.4L. Much better for video. I now exclusively use that and the 50mm 1.4 for videos.


----------



## bikeboyjr (Aug 23, 2012)

Actually, the 17-55 is NOT parfocal, but the 24-105 is - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I have the 17-55 and have tried it for video, but the range seems very limited. I have also considered purchasing the 24-105 for the more extended range. I really only want to have that much money tied into 1 lens, but the 17-55 is so good on APC, that I just can't seem to let it go!


----------



## Videoshooter (Aug 23, 2012)

Thanks for the replies everyone.



AudioGlenn said:


> I have the 24-105 and I've used it on my 60D for video. It works ok... and yes you should use ISO speeds that are multiples of 160. I eventually ended getting a 35mm 1.4L. Much better for video. I now exclusively use that and the 50mm 1.4 for videos.



Thanks. I've already got the 50 1.4 & 85 1.8, with a 28 1.8 on the way too, which will do most of the low-light stuff with the 5dmkII. However I'll still want a walk-around lens too for weddings. 




preppyak said:


> The 24-105 will be great if a lot of what you shoot is outdoors, but, its going to be unusable indoors on your 60D, and limited on the 5dII. I guess it depends a lot on what you shoot, but generally speaking, you are better off using low-light primes for flexibility with video, and either having a rig or a tripod involved.
> 
> The IS is certainly nice to have if you're shooting a lot of run and gun stuff, but, you'll have to decide if it limits you too much.



I've already got some primes and a tripod & proper video monopod, but I don't have any IS lenses, & there's definitely times I feel I need one. I understand the limitations of low light videography, and have used the 17-50 f/2.8 on th 60D in plenty of reception halls so know what to expect from it. If the 24-105 on the 5dmkII will give similar results in terms of noise/ISO performance, then I can live with that (and use the primes when I can't live with it!). Do you think the 5dmkII at f/4 at say, ISO 1250 is comparable to the 60D at f/2.8 & ISO 640, regarding noise?


----------

