Which lens Canon 17-55mm or 24-70mm?

[blur07]

Hi,

In three weeks I'll shoot one of the biggest artists in Sweden next to the stage. I will sell the 70-200 f/4L tomorrow and I want to buy either the Canon 17-55mm or Canon 24-70L. But I can't decide which one I want.

I'm using the Canon 40D and I doubt I will get a fullframe camera within a year.

If everything goes as I want I'll be shooting artists next summer. I had the chance this summer but it was rainy and I was afraid I would damage the gear.

Should I buy the 24-70 just because it's L build and it will work with all EOS bodies or should I get the 17-55 because it's wider. Do you actually use the IS when you shooting artists?

Which one of the lenses perfoms best in low light conditions?

[narlus]

the 17-55 focal length is far better suited to a crop body, esp if you are in small clubs w/ smaller stages, right up against it.

both lenses offer sharp images, and both keep their resale value.

[londonblue007]

Both work great in low light if they are both f/2.8 lenses. Only difference is how wide they get.

I've used the 17-55 and loved every second of using it. From about 8 to 10 feet away I could get floor to ceiling shots of the musician at 17mm in very very low light... very very very very low light.

example, ISO1600, f/2.8, 1/60:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3129/2495015907_06fb83f32f_b.jpg



I've never used the 24-70, but I know lots of people who do and love it as well.... It's not as wide, and has a longer zoom, but other then that, pretty much the same lens...

[gjl711]

Of those two the 17-55IS is the perfect lens for a crop body. The 24-70 is the perfect lens for a FF. Optically the two are nearly identical but the addition of IS in the 17-55 makes this lens a clear cut winner.

[bacchanal]

The 17-55 is a phenomenal lens in many ways, but the big downside for performing arts is flare. If you shoot small clubs a lot, the focal length is probably more important than flare performance.
If you shoot larger venues, I would go with the 24-70.

[Jim G]

I chose the 24-70L out of these two back when I was shooting 1.6x - I found that 17mm was wider than I needed for most gigs and that the extra length on the brick helped. Didn't regret my choice for a minute. If you're shooting really cramped venues primarily I'd be swinging the other way, though.

IS won't be of significant help, either, as by the time you're pushing handholding limits you're going to be getting notable motion blur on the part of the performers.

[blur07]

nice photo londonblue007.

today i sold the 70-200 f/4L lens, got about $100 more than I paid for it (bought in USA sold it in Sweden).

maybe I should get the 17-55mm. If I need the extra reach I think the 85mm 1.8 will do it... but GOOOD I want another L lens :-S

[narlus]

I chose the 24-70L out of these two back when I was shooting 1.6x - I found that 17mm was wider than I needed for most gigs and that the extra length on the brick helped. Didn't regret my choice for a minute. If you're shooting really cramped venues primarily I'd be swinging the other way, though.

IS won't be of significant help, either, as by the time you're pushing handholding limits you're going to be getting notable motion blur on the part of the performers.

but i would assume that you could use that lens in a lot of other settings where IS would be a benefit.

[johnms88]

IS won't be of significant help, either, as by the time you're pushing handholding limits you're going to be getting notable motion blur on the part of the performers.

Welcome to concert photography!!! Hhaha.

Im regularly handholding 1/50th. That's why we shoot so many frames in concerts, to try and get the performer on that one split second where they will not blurr due to motion-- the main reason why you can shoot 3-400 shots and come out with 10-20 keepers.


17-55 as long as you plan on staying with all 1.6x bodies. If you plan to upgrade to a 1 or 5 series, go with the 24-70. I dont think the 24-70 would be as wide as you'd like for concerts on the 1.6x.

Both lenses are excellent. I have the 24-70 and its my most used lens (im using 1d's).

[londonblue007]

nice photo londonblue007.

today i sold the 70-200 f/4L lens, got about $100 more than I paid for it (bought in USA sold it in Sweden).

maybe I should get the 17-55mm. If I need the extra reach I think the 85mm 1.8 will do it... but GOOOD I want another L lens :-S


Thanks Blur. I rented that lens to try and it out. I knew I was going to be shooting really close to the stage, wanted a nice wide lens, but also wanted the "reach" my nifty fifty usually gives me on my 1.6x crop sensor.

I don't know what your options are to rent, but that might be the deal breaker... rent both and see which you like better....

[SiZe]

Im glad I haved stumbled onto this thread, I am also seeking info on the 17-55 for concert/gig photography. I currently own the 400d and already have a 50mm 1.8 and 24-70 2.8 Sigma.
I have read lots of different opinions on the 17-55, the one aspect I think that would be good is the IS. The venues that I tend to photograph arent huge stages, some are quite big with nice lights and smoke etc - some pics to look at www.flickr.com/photos/size_uk and some are quite dark and mainly use the dreaded RED for all their lights.
Im torn between either gettin a new lens, or a new body. Especially as the 50d has come out now, but again I have read lots of opinons about it with people saying the 40d has better noise etc etc, or should i just stick with what i have lol. ARGHHHHHHHH
If someone could give me some pointers would be great.
Sorry to the OP but I didnt want to start ANOTHER thread on this lens.

[skifurthur]

I love the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens in a concert situation. On a crop body I feel it is an essential lens. Although I have had flare situations with it, they aren't as frequent as some my have you believe. I probably have 4K+ captures with that lens and I'm sure I have only had less than 40 throw aways because of flare.

[René Damkot]

If someone could give me some pointers would be great.

Had a quick look at your Flickr, and noticed you shoot a lot of "longer lens" shots.
Is that because of personal preference, or because you don't have a wider lens?

Answer that, and you know what lens works best for you; the sigma you have, or the 17-55.

[SiZe]

Had a quick look at your Flickr, and noticed you shoot a lot of "longer lens" shots.
Is that because of personal preference, or because you don't have a wider lens?

Answer that, and you know what lens works best for you; the sigma you have, or the 17-55.

Thanks for taking the time to look at my flickr.

The only wider lens I have other then the 24-70 is the crabby kit lens 18-55 which is definatly not cut out for the job :) As I say alot of the venues are quite small and your right up to the stage, recently I have started to get to some bigger venues but the stage is still within easy reach.
I was thinking the 17-55 with its IS would give me crisper shots?
I have really got hooked on photographing gig's and would like to go further in that field. So atm im trying to find my route :)
I appreciate your advice guys.

[blur07]

I got a used 17-55mm 2.8 IS in a perfect condition, paid 2/3 of what a brand new cost. I also got the Canon Hood. Very excited at the moment, in 24 hours I'll be using it on a concert.

[johnstoy]

1st of all, londonblue007's photo in post #3 is a great example of a good stage shot... Why settle for less, when you can have pics similar to his?

I purchased the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L a couple of years ago and just love the lens for just about everything, except low light shows... Although the lens stays on my camera nearly all the time...I prefer the 70-200mm f2.8L IS for show shots... The IS is just fantastic... It helps steady the camera at all shutter speeds, and the nearly impossible shots actually come out just fine... I've gotten great pics at 1/15th of a second shutter speed, at 200mm, from way back of the theater, with the IS... Great keepers that cropped/enlarged just fine...

So what am I leading to? the 17-55 f2.8 IS would be a super lens to own... IS is practically priceless in our low light conditions... and the wider lens yields better stage shots...

The 24-70 was just too slow at ISO 1600, f2.8, hand held, at nearly all shows... Luckily, it did yield one CD cover shot... but that's all, so far...

So I keep it on my 30D camera body nearly all the time, for all outdoor shots and flash shots too... However, the 17-55 IS makes all the sense in the world to have...

[STP 40D]

I've found that the 40D, the 24-70mm f/2.8L, and the 70-200mm f/2.8L represent the Holy Trinity; the "trifecta" of concert rigs...