EFS-17 - 55 vs EF 24 - 105 L price points

[mike.online]

Okay so I've gotta be missing something, but...

EF-S 17 - 55 f/2.8 = $1,079 @ B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002AA_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html)

EF 24 - 105 L f/4 = 1,049 @ BH (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/586286-USA/Canon_0344B002AA_EF_24_105mm_f_4L_IS.html)

Ok, so I get that the ef-s lens goes to f/2.8 and it gets a bit wider. But when attached to something like a 7D, I don't think I would care about the faster lens (due to ISO capability) given the demanding nature of the sensor's high MP and the much higher quality that the L lens delivers.

Does this seem crazy to you or am I missing something?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... and the much higher quality that the L lens delivers...

Say what? Suffering from the L mania?

[mike.online]

huh, i guess i took it for granted. After moving from the EF 28-135 to the EF 24 - 105 L  and seeing the differences in sharpness (pretty big, imo), and the reviews of this lens and experience I've had with other EFs  lenses I figured that was a safe bet, no?

edit: after a trip around the web i see that the 17-55 sharpness is highly regarded. i suppose it comes down to the 24 vs 17 on 1.6 crop then

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

huh, i guess i took it for granted. After moving from the EF 28-135 to the EF 24 - 105 L  and seeing the differences in sharpness (pretty big, imo), and the reviews of this lens andexperience I've had with other EFs  lenses I figured that was a safe bet, no?

17-55 has less distortion than 24-105 and is wickedly sharp (at least as sharp as the 24-105, if not sharper). Besides, it offers a 28mm view angle, vs. almost 40mm (on a crop body)... quite a difference, if you are into wide angles... plus f/2.8 is always better to have, ceteris paribus, than f/4. Now, if you are looking more for a telephoto effect, it is 90mm vs. 170mm, so 24-105 would have the advantage. However, if you are looking to compare it on a full-frame body, that would be a whole new ballgame.

[mike.online]

all good points. I've got the 24-105 on my 5d and certainly can't complain with that pairing. Helping a friend find the best lens to put on a new 7d though, and I'm leaning towards the 17-55 being a better option, with the 70-200 f/4 being a logical second lens option down the road if longer reach is needed.

[Ken Bennett]

I have the 17-55, and it's a fine lens. However, I also own the 10-22 and the 70-200. If I had to do it over again, I would get the 24-105 instead of the 17-55, since the wider lens overlaps so much with the 10-22.

In addition to solving the overlap issue, it would let me switch to 1.3x and FF bodies without worrying about lenses.

(So, hey, if anybody wants to trade a 24-105 for an excellent condition 17-55, let me know.)