C100 with EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

[Kevin Lewis]

Any one using this combination, if so are you satisfied with picture quality. I am looking to purchase this lens for my C100 and was looking for input. I currenty use the Canon 24-105 with it. Its ok, but the picture just doesnt seem that great.

[Andy Wilkinson]

Yes, have been since Nov 2012. Like many others will tell you, the build quality of the lens is "so so" but picture quality with the C100 is truly excellent, razor sharp (for Canon) - certainly comparable to most of Canon's L series lenses

But, in my opinion, the Canon 24-105mm is one of the poorest L series lenses Canon made - regarding picture quality. My 17-55 also has whisper quiet IS which is a major advantage for any hand-held work, albeit the reach at only 55mm is not as great as I would sometimes like/need without changing to either my 100mm F2.8 IS Macro (stunning images, again whisper quiet IS) or my 70-200 mm F4 IS (very useful and really sharp, but has a noisy IS for hand-held work).

I would point out that I don't own the 24-105, but have edited footage from a London film maker friend I sub-contract to shoot for me now and again when things get busy. The images just don't seem to "pop" for me when I'm editing them (but I know he is a very good film maker, skilled in his craft). Occasionally, I read of others who are dissatisfied with this lens - especially on the long end.

Best you get opinions from people actually using the C100 with it and the 17-55 through so you have a bench mark with what you already have - so take my comments in that context. I think a few who post on here have both lenses….you listening Matt Davis!

[Nate Haustein]

I have all the lenses listed, and my go-to kit includes the 11-16mm, the 17-55, and the 70-200 F4 IS. The 24-105mm is now a back up lens for me, not sharp enough for my tastes. The 17-55mm isn't as sharp as a prime, or say the 11-16mm, but it's definitely sharp enough. If I could have only one lens, the 17-55mm would be it. The IS also works great - it's my go-to handheld lens. Build quality is adequate, and in my opinion acceptable in exchange for the usable focal length and fast aperture - you'll get used to it. Go for it, there's really nothing else like it. If you buy used, don't worry about a small amount of dust, it WILL get dusty after you use it even if you buy new. If you're worried, get it professionally cleaned.

[Matt Davis]

Nate's experiences and write-up of this lens so neatly sums up my own experience (including the magic working set of 11-16, 17-55 and 70-200), all I could really say is "+1" - yes, it sucks in dust more than L series lenses, yes it's a little lacking in bite wide open, but at f3.5 it starts to look good, and yes, my 24-105 is a backup lens now.

If you're not facing low light, don't particularly need 'wafer thin' DOF and need to get continual run and gun coverage without changing lenses, I'd also put a shout in for the 18-135 STM - cheap, cheerful, plastic and useful! Works very well with the DPAF.

[Thierry Humeau]

Indeed, Canon's EF-S 17-55 performs well optically but the built quality and manual focus control is really sub-par. Worst, this lens has very poor sealing and dust makes its way inside very easily. I keep sending mind for cleaning every 4 months or so. I wish there would be an alternative in that range but there are none. What we really need is an L-Series 17-80 F2.8, that would be the ticket. And by the way, the EF 24-105 L F2.8 is an absolute steal for the price and is way better built than the 17-55.

[Richard D. George]

The 24 - 105 is sub-par optically. I traded mine for the new 24-70 f/4.0L IS which is quite good.

When I owned the 17-55 f/2.8, the dust inside really bugged me, and I sent it to Canon for cleaning.

Here is the interesting thing - I actually could not point to either stills (in RAW) or video clips where the effects of the dust were discernible.

I will most likely purchase a new copy of this lens sometime next year.

[Richard D. George]

.... And the 24-105 is not f/2.8.......

[Michael Thames]

Originally Posted by Richard D. George

The 24 - 105 is sub-par optically. I traded mine for the new 24-70 f/4.0L IS which is quite good.

When I owned the 17-55 f/2.8, the dust inside really bugged me, and I sent it to Canon for cleaning.

Here is the interesting thing - I actually could not point to either stills (in RAW) or video clips where the effects of the dust were discernible.

I will most likely purchase a new copy of this lens sometime next year.

Richard, most of the reviews I've seen between the 24-105 v. the 24-70 puts the 24-105 ahead in terms of sharpness, and that's rather surprising considering the 24-105 isn't all that sharp. The 24-70 comes out ahead in terms of contrast.

I wouldn't call it "sub-par optically".... but I don't own a 24-70 to make a personal judgement between the two.

I did do some comparison tests between my 24-105 and the 70-200 f4 IS and the later was noticeably sharper than the 24 to 105. In fact many say the 70-200 f4 IS is sharper than the 2.8 IS for some strange reason.

I see a very noticeable difference between the 24-105 and the 70-200, and I always try and use the 70-200 as much as possible even when I probably shouldn't.

[Richard D. George]

I am speaking of the relatively new 24-70 f/4.0L IS, which is optically much better than my 24-105 f/4.0L IS, which I sold. Search enough and you will find others that came to the same conclusion.

The new 24-70 f/2.8L II is supposted to be excellent. It is on my "buy" list but I don't have it yet.

[Richard D. George]

I also own the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS and the 70-200 f/4.0L IS. Both are superb optically.

[Richard D. George]

in fairness, I will admit that I might have had a poor copy of the 24-105 and I definitely have a great copy of the 24-70 f/4 IS. In addition to better sharpness, contrast, and color, the 24-70 f/4 IS has less CA.

Because of the crop factor of the C100, I would tend to use the 17-55 f/2.8 IS rather than either of the 24's

Perhaps Canon will someday make a version of the 17-55 f/2.8 II with better build quality.

[Michael Thames]

Originally Posted by Richard D. George

I am speaking of the relatively new 24-70 f/4.0L IS, which is optically much better than my 24-105 f/4.0L IS, which I sold. Search enough and you will find others that came to the same conclusion.

The new 24-70 f/2.8L II is supposted to be excellent. It is on my "buy" list but I don't have it yet.

Yea, the 24-70 f/2.8 looks like the best lens for the C100 considering the crop factor.... the only thing holding me back is it has no IS. In this case I would sacrifice a little sharpness for the lack of IS.

I had the 70-200 f/4 non IS, and I never got that sharp images photography speaking. Then I sold that and got the 70-200 f/4 with IS, and it was like night and day.

I seen a number of reviews of the 24-105 and Im not convinced it is worse than the 24-70. One reviewer of the 24-105 put it..... it's a jack of all trades and a master of one.

[Richard D. George]

Perhaps you mis-read.

Considering the crop factor of the C100, I would recommend the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, which has IS, not a 24-70.

[Mark Watson]

I agree about the 24-105mm, being somewhat mediocre on the optical quality. As an f/4, I normally only use it outside where there's plenty of light. The zoom range is nice, that's why I still have it. But what exactly does Canon claim the "L" series are? The dust and moisture resistance can't be part of the defining criteria since the TS-E 24mm is also "L" rated. That lens can rotate, shift and tilt. I don't see any o-rings in there, just metal-metal with a gap, or in one case, there's some felt or other cloth-like material used as a gasket. And that 24mm is not remarkably sharp. The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L lens is very good, and the 100-400mm has a sweet spot that I think might even best the 70-200mm. I use these long-rangers for photographing aircraft in-flight and get some really great pics.

Mark

[Michael Thames]

Originally Posted by Richard D. George

Perhaps you mis-read.

Considering the crop factor of the C100, I would recommend the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, which has IS, not a 24-70.

Yes, sorry I miss read that.