For all purpose lens...

[petedam]

So which one would be better investment?


Looking to replace my Canon 17-85mm with......


Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 or Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8

Thanks in advance.

[jongobongo]

depends on the body, 17-55 on a crop and 24-70 on a FF

[PMCphotography]

The 24-70 is great, on either a crop body or full frame. One thing to remember, it is HEAVY. I hear lots of people say they could do a whole wedding with just the 17-55, though.

[petedam]

I hear lots of people say they could do a whole wedding with just the 17-55, though.

That's what I heard. So if I'm planning on going to a full frame i should just go with the 24-70 then huh!

[jonwhite]

24-70 on a crop body isn't wide enough unless you have something else you can change to in tight situations. On a wet day if your shooting groups inside you could quite easily find your back to a wall and still not have everyone in frame with the 24-70 on a crop. 24-70 on a FF body is a great combo and what I use for at least 70% of my shots at a wedding.

17-85 isnt a good lens, its way soft and not suitable for professional work imo.

17-55 f2.8 IS on a crop is a great lens but its prone to fail more often than other lens (even if you turn the IS off when not using it) so a backup solution for key stuff is even more essential with this lens.

[tim]

17-55 F2.8 IS (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html/BI/2312/KBID/3114) for sure - that lens is the reason I haven't gone full frame. It fails more often than other lenses, so a backup is necessary, but after owning three copies of the lens (I still have all the copies) I don't worry about failure on a day to day basis. My backup to the 17-55 is another 17-55, that's how useful it is to me.

[sf1]

I've owned both.

It is hard to beat the 17-55 f/2.8 IS on a crop body - being able to hand hold to 1/10th with acceptable results is what everyone wants. I really hated to give it up when I moved to a Mark IIN. I now have the 24-70 f/2.8 is fantastic as well - still have a hard time getting below 1/60th with acceptable results.

So the 17-55 for crop bodies and the 24-70 for 1.3 or FF.

[PMCphotography]

17-55 F2.8 IS (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html/BI/2312/KBID/3114) for sure - that lens is the reason I haven't gone full frame. It fails more often than other lenses, so a backup is necessary, but after owning three copies of the lens (I still have all the copies) I don't worry about failure on a day to day basis. My backup to the 17-55 is another 17-55, that's how useful it is to me.

You like it that much, do you Tim? I'm considering replacing my 24-70 with the 17-55, I love the optical performance of the 24-70 but i don't like how heavy it is after a day of shooting with it.

[tim]

I used to have one 17-55 but I dropped it, Canon called it "uneconomic to repair". I had a bunch of weddings around that time so I bought another, then my insurance company got me another one. My assistant uses the 2nd 17-55. I almost got a 24-105 instead of the second 17-55 but the 17-55 is more generally useful, and I can usually stand closer.

I wouldn't want to use non-IS lenses, I find them too useful.

[PMCphotography]

ahh okay. I'm not stuck on IS, it actually makes me a bit queasy after using for awhile. I only turn it on when i really need it.

I'm in need of a fast wide-standard zoom that focuses fast and is light. My right shoulder has been surgically reconstructed twice, so the heaviness of a lens is quite important for me to consider.

Sounds like the 17-55 f/2.8 is just the ticket :)

[tim]

ahh okay. I'm not stuck on IS, it actually makes me a bit queasy after using for awhile. I only turn it on when i really need it.

I'm in need of a fast wide-standard zoom that focuses fast and is light. My right shoulder has been surgically reconstructed twice, so the heaviness of a lens is quite important for me to consider.

Sounds like the 17-55 f/2.8 is just the ticket :)

17-55 is ideal for you if you use crop cameras. With full frame you really only have the 24-70, which is pretty big and heavy.

[jonwhite]

ahh okay. I'm not stuck on IS, it actually makes me a bit queasy after using for awhile. I only turn it on when i really need it.

I'm in need of a fast wide-standard zoom that focuses fast and is light. My right shoulder has been surgically reconstructed twice, so the heaviness of a lens is quite important for me to consider.

Sounds like the 17-55 f/2.8 is just the ticket :)

Sorry but forget the lens, invest in some decent hosting for your blog images!

You do realize that people are getting porn pop ups when they click on your blog images don't you? Imagevenue is a very poor choice of host for a professional site, unless your running a porn site I guess.

[tim]

Yeah, worst blog i've seen in a long time too btw, horrible technology, and totally inappropriate image hosting. You will lose customers over the non-professional appearance.

[petedam]

Thanks everybody for your input and thoughts.

[picturecrazy]

yup, definitely 17-55. I usually want to throw my 24-70 in the trash whenever I use it. But that's just me. I have never used a lens that can focus faster than the 17-55, in any light. It's really awesome in that regard.

[EricStenberg]

The images I got from the 17-55 were pretty good, but the IS completely failed on me in the middle of a shoot and I didn't have any backup wide angle lenses with me (this was before I knew they were accident prone). The IS kept kicking in and vibrating, even when it was turned off... That kind of sullied my opinion of that lens.

Just my CAD$0.02

[butterfly2937]

17-55 for sure! Awesome lens and no problems to report! I can not say enough good things about the IQ and usefulness of this lens.

[tim]

The images I got from the 17-55 were pretty good, but the IS completely failed on me in the middle of a shoot and I didn't have any backup wide angle lenses with me (this was before I knew they were accident prone). The IS kept kicking in and vibrating, even when it was turned off... That kind of sullied my opinion of that lens.

Yeah that happens occasionally, that's why you need a backup lens if you use a 17-55. Failures are still rare, and you only hear about the failures not from the thousands of people who have the lens working properly.