Question for Tim, 24-70 / 17-55?

[superstes]

Hi Tim

I have a 30D and a 24-70L

I know you recommend the 17-55 on a 1.6 crop.

Is this just for the focal length or the performance, really like a rock solid answer here as I'd like to stick with the crop body.

I know it may be a bit time consuming, but can you provide an explanation what would be the better and WHY.

Ive decided not to go FF for now so I will sell my 24-70 if needed.

Many thanks.

Steve

[tim]

You know, other people have opinions too, and they're almost as good as mine ;)

I like the 17-55 F2.8 IS because it focuses accurately and has IS. That's it. The 24-70L is better built, but the focus reliability is poor on some copies of the lens. All my 17-55 lenses have been good at focusing - i've had three, currently have two. IS is the main thing, I find it invaluable. I really don't like tripods.

The downside to to the 17-55 is it's more fragile than most lenses, drop it from any significant height and it's toast. Also the IS unit breaks sometimes, so you have to have a backup - even if it's a prime like the Sigma 30 F1.4 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/381615-REG/Sigma_300101_30mm_f_1_4_EX_DC.html/BI/2312/KBID/3114). My backup to the 17-55 is another 17-55 - that's how much I value the lens. My assistant uses it when i'm not using it.

[Mike]

I'm not allowed to answer :(

But I will! ;) I use a 24-70 lens for the ceremony but usually keep my 30mm f/1.4 lens attached at all other times. The 24-70 is a good range although on a crop body it is sometimes not quite wide enough. My main reason for using the 24-70 range is actually because I got it before I got into weddings and I couldn't justify spending any more on changing it for a 17-55. I like the range though and find it works for me on crop.

The reason why I use the zoom for the ceremony and the prime for most other stuff is that, during the ceremony I like to keep as inconspicuous as possible and a zoom helps me achieve that as I don't have to move about as much. The 30mm goes on straight after the ceremony though as it is a cracking lens and I can use foot-zoom when I need to.

I hope I didn't upset you by answering! :p

[superstes]

I hope I didn't upset you by answering! :p:lol: I may have worded this thread better ;)

Cheers Guy's.

My main reason for asking was to find out if there was a tec issue not a focal preference.

A few minutes ago I was dive bombed in the garden by a butterfly who landed on my R/hand, as luck would have it I was just going through some settings for the lens and managed to fire off some shots with my L/hand, I had to take them with the camera upside down using the grip (worked a treat)

Anyways, I was blown away by the detail on the insect and my skin, this has put my mind at rest.

I've been shooting with the 50 and 70-200 for the last year and find 24mm a little wide, the 30mm f/1.4 looks like it's worth a look though, I'll spend a few days at this FL and see how it goes.

Thanks both.

Steve

[Peacefield]

I'm not inclined to disagree with Tim as he is far more knowledgable than I, and it is a matter of personal opinion, of course, but I prefer the 24-70 on my 50D (which is the second camera to a 5D2).

It's rare that I can't get wide enough even on a 1.6 body. If I do hit that wall, there's always the fairly inexpensive Sigma 10-20 that I keep in my bag for very wide shots anyway. I thnk the 24-70 has a little more to offer from an IQ perspective. IS would be nice, and there's been talk about an IS version of the 24-70 coming, but I don't feel like I miss it at this focal range. It's very rare that I can't get a fast enough shutter speed to safely hand hold. My copy focuses very well, though it may or may not be as fast or consistent as a 17-55.

The 17-55 is very popular for good reason. If you were to do a poll, I think it would gather more votes, but I'm real happy with my 24-70.

[tim]

I have some great photos at ISO3200 F2.8 1/10th that wouldn't be possible with the 24-70 without a tripod! It's not too hard to grab a tripod, you just have to know in advance you want it and haul it along. But everyone has different needs and style, options are good :)

[jonwhite]

24-70 on a crop body is just completely frustrating, its neither one thing or the other and shooting a couple of weddings with a 24-70 + 40D combo made me want to throw them in river.

24-70 on full frame however is great combo and Nick and I shoot about 75% of our stuff with this combo.

Buy lenses to suit your crop factor, doing anything else just results in frustration IMO, Canons lens line up isn't accidental, there's logic to it.

Some lenses do work well on both a crop and a FF sensor (I like my 70-200 f2.8 IS on both crop and FF bodies) but some are just better suited to either FF or crop even if the fitting means that they will fit on the different crop factors.

The 17-55 F2.8 IS is a high performance lens and is well suited to a crop body, but its build quality is pretty poor and I haven't heard many pro's who have used one extensively without having some sort of failure and between me and Nick we had more than our fair share of issues when we used this lens so a backup is important if this is your main lens.

[form]

Extra reach is nice when you're used to shooting longer, like I was and still am. The 17-55 IS would still be a good lens for crop sensors because of the wide end being so useful, but the most valuable gain is the IS. However, there's no beating the effect of a 35L on a full frame sensor at wide apertures, it's really 3D looking. I say stick with what you're comfortable with and don't trade down unless you really value the IS and have limited need for the extra 15mm for reach/DoF control. To me, IS is more valuable on a longer lens; the subject has to be pretty still for a 1/10 sec. shot to land without motion blur.

All said and done, I'd take a pair of primes over a standard zoom for anything except formals. Maybe 24L and 50L on crop sensor cameras. I'm using the 35L and 85L for 98% of my shots now, and I used to use standard zoom almost all the time before I got them, but it was just not fast enough.

[superstes]

Well, I've been playing at 30mm and I really like this FL, the Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX DC HSM comes in at 309 pounds and the 85mm f/1.8 comes in at 315 pounds, these two are affordable for me at the moment.

With the 50 f/1.8, 24-70 and my 70-200 I may have too many, but I hate to let anything go.

I can see my 2 bodies using the 30mm, 85 and 70-200 the most though.

If you had the choice of these, with the experience you all have, what would your choice be?

[Mike]

Well, at my last wedding I used 70-200 on one body all the time and my 30mm was on for about 60% of the time on my other body, with my 24-70, 10-20 and 105 macro all taking turns for the other 40%.

[jonwhite]

30mm Sigma is a nice lens on a crop body, not good on a full frame body though because you get extremely large dark corners, soon as we went FF we sold the 30mm Sigma and bought the 50mm Sigma which is a decent cheap option for FF bodies.

Buy lenses to suit your crop factor and if your gonna swap from cropped to FF then expect to change a few lenses along the way.

[superstes]

Well, at my last wedding I used 70-200 on one body all the time and my 30mm was on for about 60% of the time on my other body, with my 24-70, 10-20 and 105 macro all taking turns for the other 40%.

Agreed with the 70-200 being glued to a body, although mine is f/4 I still love it.

30mm is a very nice FL and if I am to pick a prime this will be it, the 85 a very close second.

[superstes]

30mm Sigma is a nice lens on a crop body, not good on a full frame body though because you get extremely large dark corners, soon as we went FF we sold the 30mm Sigma and bought the 50mm Sigma which is a decent cheap option for FF bodies.

Buy lenses to suit your crop factor and if your gonna swap from cropped to FF then expect to change a few lenses along the way.

Nice one, thanks.

I'm going to stick with a 1.6 for the time being so the Sigma 30mm sounds like a good option, would like to go FF with a 5D but will also keep a 30D or similar.

Thanks again.

[bps]

I love my 17-55 for the focal range, the IS, and the tack sharp pictures it takes. 24mm on a crop body is just not wide enough -- 17mm is just about perfect. For weddings, I'll take the 17-55 2.8 IS over the 24-70 2.8 any day.

Bryan

[superstes]

24mm on a crop body is just not wide enough -- 17mm is just about perfect.


Hey Bryan

17mm seems really wide, been trying to think why I would go so wide.

I think my main reason for this thread is the 24-70 on a 1.6 crop, is it really a bad idea for the FL or performance, if it's just the FL, I'll choose the 24-70 every day.

If the 17-55 really out performs the 24-70L because of the crop factor I'd really consider swapping, but with the issues of the 17-55 which are well documented, I'm a little concerned swapping.

[tim]

Try taking photos in a small room if the wedding's rained out, then you'll discover 17mm isn't as wide as you thought. The 10-22 is a life saver occasionally. Also at 17mm you start to get the cool wide angle effect in the sky, but it happens more nearer to 10mm.

The 24-70 and 17-55 both take good sharp images, if you get a good copy of the 24-70. The 17-55 seems more consistent in sharpness, but more fragile.

[superstes]

Try taking photos in a small room if the wedding's rained out, then you'll discover 17mm isn't as wide as you thought. The 10-22 is a life saver occasionally. Also at 17mm you start to get the cool wide angle effect in the sky, but it happens more nearer to 10mm.

As I'm covered from 24mm to 200mm, your right, an UWA sounds like a fair option, I'm not unhappy with my lens choice at the moment, the Tokinia 11-16 f/2.8 looks a good choice.

Lots of good karma on this lens.