canon 17-85 or 24-70 ??

[rvduijn]

i have a canon 20d with a 17-85 and a 60 mm macro.

now i can sell my 17-85 for a good price around € 500

now i want to buy a 24-70 2.8 that cost € 1150

my question is the difference of € 650 worth it to buy the new one or must i keep de old on.

:rolleyes:

ow anf future planning is to buy a 70-200 IS 2.8 and a 16-35

[cactusclay]

I would go and try one in a store first and do some sharpness tests on it.

[ayotnoms]

Given the chance, I would make the move to the 24-70mm in a hummingbird's heartbeat. 8-)

[Jon]

Remember that in changing from the 17-85 to the 24-70 you're giving up coverage at both ends. Now the difference between 70 and 85 mm isn't too bad, but you're cutting your wide FoV by about 20% with the 24 as opposed to the 17. If you never use the wide end of the 17-85, you can live with that, but otherwise, you'll be leaving gaps in your coverage until you get that 16-35. I'd be more inclined to work on the long end, sell off the 60 mm macro and go for a 70-200 L and a set of extension tubes. Then, when you're next ready to move, dispose of the 17-85 for the 16-35, and add the 24-70 later. That way you've got your range pretty well covered all along.

[blue_max]

You are hoping to buy best in class lenses, so you have seen the reviews and feel you would prefer the same quality to replace the lens you have.

Was it a rhetorical question?

Graham

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

If you have the money, go for it. The quality is a bazillion times better. Like someone else said you lose a little mm on each end, but who cares.