What should I get? Canon 17-55 2.8 IS or 24-70 2.8 [Archive]

TooManyHobbies

28th of June 2006 (Wed), 06:45

tim

28th of June 2006 (Wed), 06:49

TooManyHobbies

28th of June 2006 (Wed), 10:52

Have you seen this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=183564)? Best you tell us what you want to use the lens for, and in what conditions - apparently it has some flare problems and a mild vignette at F2.8.

It seems there is a difference of opion in the thread. As for FF or not, even if I get a FF camera, I would still keep my 20D as a second. The FL's are so similar that use would be the same. I shoot everything. I'll have to investigate more on the flare. All wide angles have flare problems though. Mild vignette at 2.8 on wide zoom is expected sometimes. I think the 17-55 would also allow me to carry one less lens and with all my stuff the load and bag space is starting to become a problem.

TooManyHobbies

3rd of July 2006 (Mon), 08:05

Well, I've had second thoughts about getting rid of the 10-22mm after seeing some posts in various places. I'm going to use it this week and see how many shots are below 17mm.

steved110

3rd of July 2006 (Mon), 08:10

Not wishing to start anothr flaming session, I'm not that keen on the 17-55 - yet. I think the jury is still out, and for sure the price needs to settle a bit too IMO.
I like the idea of a fast constant aperture in the 24-70 range, and it would match well with your exisiting 10-22 - so if your Sigma no longer cuts the mustard, I'd say go with the tried and tested 24-70L - financially it's heavy going but really not that much more than the 17-55, especially if you sell your sigma.

allenko

3rd of July 2006 (Mon), 10:07

1. According to this site:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

"At all overlapping focal lengths and apertures, the 17-55 is sharper than my Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens".

2. According to reviews on both FM and Photozone so far, the 17-55 IS has a higher rating than 24-70L.

My suggestion is if you are switching to FF in the near future, go with 24-70L since 17-55 IS is EF-S only. If you are staying with 1.6 crop for a few years, then the 17-55 IS may be a better walk around with a focal length equivalent of 27-88mm. The optical quality on both are excellent. 24-70L has better build, but 17-55 IS has IS and weights 11 oz less. I pick the 17-55 IS based on personal perferences, but I also respect others who have 24-70L (or 24-105L for that matter). Why not order both from a shop with a 7 day return policy and try them out?

matsuib

3rd of July 2006 (Mon), 10:17

I would get the 17-55 without hesitation, and I own a 24-70 on a ff, unless I was planning on going full frame in the next year or so.

If I was going to go ff in the next year or so, I would either get a 24-70 or wait and see if a ff equivalent to the 17-55 comes out in the fall (i.e., a lens in the 24-70 range with f2.8 and IS -- which may not happen anyway). I wouldn't want to have such a good lens that could only be used on one of my bodies, particularly since a ff camera bears a crop camera in that general focal range (it's the telephoto range where the crop camera with its pixel density has some advantages).

Petelebon

3rd of July 2006 (Mon), 15:47

You should get the 17-55 if you want it but it is not a remplacement for the 10-22 so you should keep this one. You should also keep the 24-70 for when you need more range in the 50-70mm range...

If i were you i would go something like this:

EF-S 10-22
EF-S 17-55 f2.8
Sig 24-70
Canon 70-300IS or 70-200L IS f2.8
430EX

There youn have it! Expensive, but if you are serious with your hobby, this is it!

TooManyHobbies

3rd of July 2006 (Mon), 16:59

I wish Canon would have made the 24-70 2.8L with IS and great IQ, then I wouldn't be so indecisive.

basroil

3rd of July 2006 (Mon), 18:02

I wish Canon would have made the 24-70 2.8L with IS and great IQ, then I wouldn't be so indecisive.

well, that's exactly what the 17-55IS is, it's approximately the same range as 24-70 (about 28-90, but close enough), f2.8, and has IS.... however, considering you already have decent lenses, i would suggest not upgrading to a new lens unless you never use the wider end of your 10-22, and are wishing for something sharper than your sigma when wide open. personally, i would rather buy a 35L or 50mm 1.4 instead of either of the other lenses if i had your collection...

jedwards

3rd of July 2006 (Mon), 18:08

I wish Canon would have made the 24-70 2.8L with IS and great IQ, then I wouldn't be so indecisive.

Then the issue would be that it cost $1600 and be too long on a crop camera.

The 17-55IS is a very good lens. I got tired of switching to my 10-22 for shots at 22, than back to 24-85 - and the 17-55 also gives me a great indoor lens to boot. I had the 17-40L, used it for landscapes as it was too slow for indoors, eventually wanted wider landscape lens and traded it for a 10-22.

Regarding the upper half of the range, 55-70 does not seem to be as great a difference as 17-24mm.

EDIT - I would keep my existing lenses unless you have that lens switching issue, and keep the 10-22.

ScottE

3rd of July 2006 (Mon), 22:07

I have pretty well made up my mind. Keep the 10-22 and get the 17-55. My 3 lens kit for travel where I will shooting everything from landscapes to culture to wildlife will be the 10-22, 17-55 and Sigma 50-500.

For travel where space is more limited (the Sigma is big and heavy) I will probably get a Canon 70-300 DO to take instead of the 50-500. A three lens kit of 10-22, 17-55 and 70-300 will fit in a small camera bag and cover most to the requirements for travel, other than birds and small wildlife.

alidarbac

3rd of July 2006 (Mon), 22:46

I third the notion that I'd rather have a 10-22 and a 17-55 rather than a 10-22 and 24-70. I'd rather step in a couple of feet closer to fill in the frame at 55mm than constantly switch lenses when going from 17mm to 24mm.

I used to go with the Sigma 10-20 and Sigma 24-70 and I found that having to switch lenses at that 20-24 range is mighty inconvenient. I'm keeping my 10-20 (fantastic lens), but sold my Sigma 24-70/2.8, which I was never satisfied with (besides the inconvenient range, I didn't like the huge size, and it was just plain too soft at 70mm even after having it sent in for calibration), and I'm waiting for some more reviews of the Tamron 17-50 and perhaps the Tokina 16-50.

TooManyHobbies

3rd of July 2006 (Mon), 22:55

I've never had the softness problems with my Sigma that so many others talk about. I guess I'm lucky. It's not as sharp as the 70-200, but it's really not as bad as everyone makes out. Maybe because I'm always looking at the center when I'm zoomed in on something and the 2.8 is blurring out my background anyway. The huge size doesn't bother me, I'm too used to shooting with my 70-200 all the time. The filter size does bother me, but too late, I already bought the 82mm filters I wanted for big bucks.

jjcharity

4th of July 2006 (Tue), 00:23

Get the 17-55. It's an excellent lens. Don't sell your 10-22. I sold mine after I purchased my 17-55. Found out 17mm is not wide enough, for me, on a crop camera. I purchased a new 10-22 a few days later.

karusel

4th of July 2006 (Tue), 00:37

According to the poll results, we have no idea. I voted for 24-70, because I don't like EF-S lenses and because I suppose it's better than Sigma.

young_einstein

4th of July 2006 (Tue), 01:51

Another vote for the 17-55!

I've had mine for a couple of months now ... and it's an absolutely brilliant lens.

TooManyHobbies

4th of July 2006 (Tue), 09:38

Looking at the poll it's almost a 3-way tie? Thanks for the advice from everyone. I haven't made a decision yet. July 10th will be my for sure deadline to decide.

bad_doggie

4th of July 2006 (Tue), 10:24

For travel where space is more limited (the Sigma is big and heavy) I will probably get a Canon 70-300 DO to take instead of the 50-500. A three lens kit of 10-22, 17-55 and 70-300 will fit in a small camera bag and cover most to the requirements for travel, other than birds and small wildlife.

that's almost exactly what i take for travel, subsittuting the 50/1.4 for the 17-55. (its what i have, its small and fast, and i can't justify adding a zoom in that range. but that's just me. i can live with gaps :-) ) the 70-300 DO is perfect for travel.

i def think u should keep the 10-22 ... but of course only if you use it. :-) i use mine alot. but then i also have these days where i go out only with the 10-22 and force myself to look wide rather than look small.

i voted that u should keep what you have: apparently, since ur asking, there isn't any obvious reason to switch from the sigma to the canon lens with similar stats. and i'm not sure that IS on a lens in that focal range (and that fast) is all that useful, unless you photograph fountains or something.

rwong2k

4th of July 2006 (Tue), 14:54

i own the 17-55/2.8, after using it for about 2 months now, I like my 24-105/4 much better for range, but I would like the 2.8 for outdoor portraits so I'd probably choose the 24-70 over the 17-55 =)

TooManyHobbies

4th of July 2006 (Tue), 15:04

i own the 17-55/2.8, after using it for about 2 months now, I like my 24-105/4 much better for range, but I would like the 2.8 for outdoor portraits so I'd probably choose the 24-70 over the 17-55 =)
Do you have another lens for the above 55 range? I have my 70-200 so I may not notice that lack.

dmwierz

4th of July 2006 (Tue), 15:36

Do you have another lens for the above 55 range? I have my 70-200 so I may not notice that lack.

TMH,

Somewhere, in the seemingly endless string of "Is the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS any good?" threads, I left a comment that I have recently vacation'ed with the 17-55 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 (putting the 70-200 on a belt pouch and swapping it out with the 17-55 when I needed the reach) and found this combo to be almost perfect on the 20D. I say almost 'cuz I sometimes wanted wider, and soometimes wanted longer, and I sometimes wanted faster, but for the most part, these two lenses covered almost everything I ran into.

Dennis
http://www.pbase.com/dmwierz45/sports_shots

TooManyHobbies

5th of July 2006 (Wed), 10:00

So far on my test this week the 10-22 worked great for fireworks. I used between 12-22.

rwong2k

5th of July 2006 (Wed), 10:04

Do you have another lens for the above 55 range? I have my 70-200 so I may not notice that lack.

I guess I'm just thinking from a general walk around lens point of view (or outdoor portraits)

17 doens't seem wide enough for landscapes, 10-22 would be a better choice
55mm isn't long enouhg 70 would be perfect
so for the type of shooting I do, 24-70 fits much better

and for the feel of a lens I like the feel of the 24-70's over the 17-55, the 17-55 feels like a toy =( but optics it's awesome!

I do have a 70-200 also used it for walk around it was pretty good, but I guess what I really need is 2 bodies one with the 70-200 and one with the 17-55 =p

Doom1701e

5th of July 2006 (Wed), 10:11

The 24-70 is one of Canons greatest zoom lenses. That would always be my choice over anything else. That lens stays on my camera 90% of the time.

grego

5th of July 2006 (Wed), 17:33

I do have a 70-200 also used it for walk around it was pretty good, but I guess what I really need is 2 bodies one with the 70-200 and one with the 17-55 =p

2 bodies = ultimate solution. :)

Master-9

5th of July 2006 (Wed), 17:53

The 24-70 is one of Canons greatest zoom lenses. That would always be my choice over anything else. That lens stays on my camera 90% of the time.

I agree

tim

5th of July 2006 (Wed), 19:52

The 24-70 is one of Canons greatest zoom lenses. That would always be my choice over anything else. That lens stays on my camera 90% of the time.

For full frame absolutely. For a cropped sensor it's not too bad either.

accord

6th of July 2006 (Thu), 02:15

For full frame absolutely. For a cropped sensor it's not too bad either.

For cropped sensor, there is a better one in terms of zoom range, IS and IQ.

young_einstein

6th of July 2006 (Thu), 06:42

The 24-70 is one of Canons greatest zoom lenses.

It certainly was ... until the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8IS came along. ;)

Now we can get a lens which is smaller, 30% lighter, has a better range, shaper pictures & image stabilisation to boot!

For anyone using an APS-C camera, it's now a much better lens!

TooManyHobbies

6th of July 2006 (Thu), 08:22

2 bodies = ultimate solution. :)

That is my ultimate goal. So condsider this for the best range using only 2 lenses...with a FF and the 20D I would have...

17-55 and 70-200
Range: 27-200

24-70 and 70-200
Range: 38-200 or 24-70 + 112-320

Of course with the 20D only I would have

with 17-55 and 70-200 Range: 27-88 + 112-320
with 24-70 and 70-200 Range: 38-320

I would like to think that when I get a FF (it will be later when the 5D is replaced with something better and cheaper) there will be a 24-70 with IS that I can get at the same time, so that my FF range is good and I have the 17-55 for my 20D. Having a 17-55 that is fast, small, compact, IS, and has great IQ appeals to me until later when I can get the FF and a excuse to buy antoher lens. So maybe I answered my own question. The only thing now is wether I will miss the 10-16 range if I get rid of my 10-22 to help pay for the 17-55.

Many people have stated that the 10-22 is great for landscapes. I don't think so. I use it for other things. For landscapes I would rather stich images together to get that wide of a view. the 10-22 can make impressinve landscapes seem dull. I do like it for cityscapes. I like it for macro (wierd?), still life, and for portrait, too

rwong2k

6th of July 2006 (Thu), 10:34

It certainly was ... until the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8IS came along. ;)

Now we can get a lens which is smaller, 30% lighter, has a better range, shaper pictures & image stabilisation to boot!

For anyone using an APS-C camera, it's now a much better lens!

I wonder if Canon will come out with a 24-70/2.8 with IS?

IS yeh!
better range? hmm wish it was longer to like 85mm or 105 =)
sharper yeh!
30% lighter, personally I like the feel of the 24-105 and the 24-70 lens a lot better than the 17-55 (personal perference of course)

narlus

6th of July 2006 (Thu), 11:38

For cropped sensor, there is a better one in terms of zoom range, IS and IQ.

i am assuming you are referring to the 17-55?

this is an interesting thread for me, as i am faced w/ a similar decision very soon. i want to get rid of my kit lens (or more likely, just upgrade it...they don't seem to fetch much $) and the two obvious choices are the 17-55 EFS and 24-70L. the latter would be a seamless fit, focal-lengthwise (12-24 :: 24-70 :: 70-200) but i would sacrifice small overlap and the 55-70 gap if image quality was noticeably better. the jury still seems divided on that one. and, i must admit that IS is intriguing; i've never used it but the benefits seem to be pretty significant.

price is a wash, though i've already got 77mm filters i could use on the L. and, i really don't see myself ditching the 350D any time soon (i've only had it for 6 months).

so it's not a clear decision in my mind.

accord

6th of July 2006 (Thu), 20:24

In selecting lenses collection, it comes to the nature breaks of zoom range. There has been many years in full frame format that arrives at the focal ranges of 16-40mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm. These breaks may not suit everybody, but they should suit the majorities to minimize changing lenses with minimal number of lenses having good image quality.

Now we come to the age of digital, the 1.6x camera is very affordable for the majority. However, the good lenses are designed for full frame and borrowed for the cropped cameras. We therefore lost the natural breaks of the focal ranges in these cropped format cameras.

The decision will be very simple if the original nature breaks which has been evolve for years by photography professionals is your major weighting factor.

Jamie Holladay

6th of July 2006 (Thu), 21:39

I voted for the 24-70. Here is why. I rented it about a month ago and it fit my needs (I shoot mostly automotive). The sharpness of the lens was amazing (of course i am comparing it to a sigma 28-90). It is a bit heavy. Once I can afford one I plan to replace my Sigma 28-90 with the Canon 24-70L. I liked the f/2.8. It gave me the DOF for the out doors shots that I needed and also allowed me low light shots that I had been missing with my Sigma lens. I also experimented with some car to car shots with it, it was not ideal for that because of the range but I was not totally disappointed with the shots. The cars were sharp which was great, I just lost the motion that I would have gotten with a longer lens (thus the 70-200 purchase this a.m.). Just my $.02

TooManyHobbies

7th of July 2006 (Fri), 06:30

Here's my lens wishlist...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1696930&postcount=51

hania

21st of July 2006 (Fri), 14:13

have used 17-55IS on 300D in very low light - Chinese Circus - just posted today in 'Performing Arts'.
Amazing compared with the kit lens - now Im saving up for a 30D.............cant comment on the other lens.

Wilt

21st of July 2006 (Fri), 14:37

Here is the info on each. The non L lens looks like it may perform better. Look at the image comparison link on the reviews and choose each lens.

Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)

OR

Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)

Absurd poll, without considering Full Frame vs. 1.6 crop, and without considering whether a particular photographer wants a reasonable wide angle coverage...24mm lens on 1.6 crop format is the equivalent of 38mm, which is hardly 'wide angle' on a 35mm film camera. No wonder the results are tied...everyone is answering in an unstated context!

An equivalent poll: " What is better, a Honda minivan or a U-Haul trailer? " (Better for what? what do you need it for? How many people are you transporting, if any? Do you have a towing hitch? )

TooManyHobbies

21st of July 2006 (Fri), 17:33

Absurd poll, without considering Full Frame vs. 1.6 crop, and without considering whether a particular photographer wants a reasonable wide angle coverage...24mm lens on 1.6 crop format is the equivalent of 38mm, which is hardly 'wide angle' on a 35mm film camera. No wonder the results are tied...everyone is answering in an unstated context!

Maybe you should read the messages from the one who started it explaining all those things. Another drive by poster. See....http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=187897

As previously stated....I have a 20D, but eventually will get a full frame. I still intend to keep my 20D when I get a FF. I'd like to currently cut down the number of lenses I carry, since I don't think I use the 10-16mm range that often. I want high IQ and love IS and L lenses. I have also given comparison charts showning the 1.6 to FF difference when I have both or just a 1.6. I have also shown what I thought my wishlist would be for both a 1.6 and a FF, but I already have a Sigma 24-70 that isn't on that list. As for what I will use it for, so many on this forum shoot so many different things that I'm not limiting my self to a type of shot, but asking for a versatile collection of lenses with my desires previously stated.

Wilt

21st of July 2006 (Fri), 18:06

[quote=TooManyHobbies]Maybe you should read the messages from the one who started it explaining all those things. Another drive by poster. See....http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=187897

It would have helped if the OP referenced some other earlier thread...calling me a 'drive by poster' is rather harsh! I am sure you don't read every thread on the entire forum, do you?...I don't, nor can I read minds, unfortunately. I read thru many of the replies, and they seemed all over the map, and being forced to read 3 pages of replies because your opening post was absolutely vague...(enough said)

If you don't shoot below 16mm on your crop format body, you'd likely be served well by something above 28mm for FF! Everything you can use on FF you can use on your 20D, so it would seem that you only would need something to cover 17-28mm for your 20D and later on the FF, perhaps the 17-40 since the 17-55 EFS would be useless on the FF.

TooManyHobbies

21st of July 2006 (Fri), 18:46

It would have helped if the OP referenced some other earlier thread...calling me a 'drive by poster' is rather harsh! I.

Didn't mean to be. Everyone is a drive-by-poster. Ha..Ha.

I was working through my issues during the post. I'm very indecisive sometimes and yes...even vague.

ChopstickHero

21st of July 2006 (Fri), 18:46

i don't plan on going FF. i don't need to. so the 17-55 EF-S was my choice. of course, it's nice to have a lens that FF guys can't use. :)

AmericanFirst

21st of July 2006 (Fri), 22:13

Personally, I have found the TAmROn SP AF17~50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19872) to be a fantastic lens for the price. You could save nearly $600, holding the camera steady!

Maybe even pick up a TAmROn SP AF28~75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_2875_28/index.htm)with all the money you're savin'!

Or better yet, a Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_456is/index.htm), for just the right amount of telephoto.