EF-S 17 - 85 mm F4.5 - F5.6 IS USM versus EF 24-70mm f/2.8L

[dougsturgess]

I would like some people's opinion on selecting one of the above lenses.

I'm going to upgrade from the G2 to the d20 in the near future. I shoot mainly landscapes, some portraits and some macro. I take lots of landscapes on ships (when I'm on vacation).

I want to spend my money wisely. If I had to choose between these 2 lenses, which would be best?

I like the idea of the IS feature on the new lens designed for the d20. However, if the final product will be significantly sharper/better and suit my purposes, I would rather spend the $600 for the IS lens toward the L-lens.

Thanks. Any advice would be appreciated.

www.pbase.com/dougsturgess/tahiti

[MrChad]

I'd take the L-glass anyday.
I't a better piece of glass and a better investment.
The L lens is going to take great photos on film and other full frame cameras as well. Who know if years down the road the EF-S lens will do you any good besides on the D20. And I've never needed IS on a lens that short.

You're going to loose to the crop factor with the 24-70L, but it's a much faster lenses. I'll take shutter speed, aperture options over IS anyday.

If you can afford it, get the L.

[dougsturgess]

Thanks for your reply. What exactly do you mean I'll loose the crop factor? Also, being on a moving ship, will I still get sharper pictures using the L-lens w/o IS than if using the IS lens?

[MrChad]

Thanks for your reply. What exactly do you mean I'll loose the crop factor? Also, being on a moving ship, will I still get sharper pictures using the L-lens w/o IS than if using the IS lens?

The 28-70L is going to be a 44.8-112, so it's a bit longer of a lens.
The 17-85 is going to more like the 28-105 in length.

Trust me I have all f4-5.6 glass at the moment for my Canon, unless it's sunny or you use a good flash like the 420/550E/580X you will spend alot of time shooting wide open to keep the shutter speeds you need. For shooting on a boat I'd think a faster shutter and faster aperture would help you out more.

I shot our P&S on our honeymoon cruise without IS and I'd image your shots would work out just fine with the 24-70L.

You may even be better off getting the 20D and a pair of faster 3rd party lenses vs. the price of the 17-85 or 24-70.

If you are still worried you may need IS, the 17-40L paired with the 28-135IS might be an option too.

[CoolToolGuy]

The 24-70 f2.8L is an excellent lens. However, it is very big and heavy. If you carry it around for a day, you will realize this. The image quality is excellent, but I have noticed some softness wide open. For landscapes, it is not quite as wide as most folks would like.

I am currently evaluating the 17-85 as a replacement for my 24-70 L. The range of the 17-85 is outstanding for a walkaround, or general purpose zoom lens, and the size and weight are very comfortable. I have had my 20D for a week now, and had occasion to use it 3 times (counting one later today). The first was a night football game - not a good time to use the 17-85 with a max aperture of 3.5-5.6, so I used the 24-70 L. The second was a festival that was overcast - again not the best for the 17-85, but I used it and the shots came out okay. Today is a parade, and it is again heavily overcast. I will take only two lenses (17-85 and 70-200 f4L) and I will see how it goes.

My suspicion is that the 24-70 L will be a great lens to take on garden trips and the like, but I am wondering whether it is worth keeping such an expensive piece of glass for a limited use. I have alternatives (primes) to cover low light situations. Time will tell.

Have Fun,

[tofuboy]

I think you're a little of on your crop factor numbers Mr. Chad. Should be (with 1.6x)
24-70 = 38-112
17-85 = 27-136

The ef-s 17-85 IS lens when used on a camera with a 1.6x factor (300d, 20d) pretty much has the same range as the ef 28-135 IS lens when used on a camera with a 1.0x factor (full frame sensor). Coincidence, I think not.

Like CoolToolGuy said, the L lens will be a lot heavier cmpared to the other lense. The question you'll need to ask yourself is, is it too heavy for you to use as a walk around lens? The L lens will be of better quality though, the question is if the tradeoff is great enough to want the L.

[dougsturgess]

If one were to purchase 1 lens to start with (I've not had an SLR before), which one would be the best all around lens?

Remember, for the purposes of this discussion, choose a Canon lens and pretend cost is not a factor.

[kim]

Thanks for your reply. What exactly do you mean I'll loose the crop factor? Also, being on a moving ship, will I still get sharper pictures using the L-lens w/o IS than if using the IS lens?
••••
the crop factor he refers to is the 1.6x 'magnification' you get because of the smaller digital sensor. A 100 mm becomes a 160mm and this effect is for every lens at every length.

The IS won't help you significantly on a moving ship. It's intended to help correct camera movement on a (relatively) still or slow moving subject. If your subject is ON the ship then it may help a _little_ but it won't help if the subject is not on the ship or moving eg: another boat or the land. (the theory is that if you need any sort of fast-ish shutter speed to freeze the subject that should more than compensate for your camera movement)

FWIW re lenses, I just ordered a 24-70 f2.8 L, a 10-22 and a 70-200. I was going to go the 17-40 but I wanted the extra stop and the gap from 40 to 70 seemed a lot.

cheers

kim

[gramps]

"FWIW re lenses, I just ordered a 24-70 f2.8 L, a 10-22 and a 70-200. I was going to go the 17-40 but I wanted the extra stop and the gap from 40 to 70 seemed a lot.

cheers

kim"

Kim I'm curious..............I'm just about to do the same thing, which 70 - 200 are you ordering? Also do you mind if I ask where you got the best prices? If you don't want to post the store you can pm me.

Thanks Much
Steve "gramps"

[Mthorpe_Davies]

If one were to purchase 1 lens to start with (I've not had an SLR before), which one would be the best all around lens?

Remember, for the purposes of this discussion, choose a Canon lens and pretend cost is not a factor.

In my opinion it would be the 24-70, it's a stunning piece of glass, you will probably end up getting one anyway so why not get it now.

[Andy_T]

Another alternative...

combination of:
Canon 17-40/f4 L (600$)
Tamron 28-75/f2.8 XR DI (350$)

still cheaper than the 24-70 L and maybe more useful for landscapes.

Best regards,
Andy

[davidwegs]

Another alternative...

combination of:
Canon 17-40/f4 L (600$)
Tamron 28-75/f2.8 XR DI (350$)

still cheaper than the 24-70 L and maybe more useful for landscapes.

Best regards,
Andy

I have had and used the Tamron and the Canon in the 28-75 and 24-70 respectively. they are too close to call optically. Check this link out:

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Zstf

You have to be prepared, however, to return the Tamron if you don't get a good one (I go one that was soft wide open at first, though the second is perfect).

The 17-40 is a very nice lens, and I think equal to the 24-70 in image quality. Between those two you are better off (overall) than with the 24-70.