Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 17 Mar 2011 (Thursday) 23:41
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17-55 f/2.8 or 24-70 f/2.8L?

 
clamber
Senior Member
321 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2008
     
Mar 17, 2011 23:41 |  #1

Next month I'm going to get some new photo gear for my 60D, and I want the main item to be a good general purpose lens.

I'm trying to decide between the 17-55 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8L, and I need some input and advice.

I mostly want to shoot outdoor/nature/landsca​pe stuff, but it will get a lot of use in other areas as well.

So what would you recommend, and why?

Thanks,
Coby




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
chrizramiscal
Member
195 posts
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Jersey ****ty, New Joizy
     
Mar 17, 2011 23:42 |  #2

17-55 since you need the wide end. 24mm won't be as wide as you might like when it comes to nature and landscape stuff, specially on your 60D.


My Gear and Feedback 

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
clamber
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
321 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2008
     
Mar 17, 2011 23:48 |  #3

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

That red stripe is just so appealing though!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chrizramiscal
Member
195 posts
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Jersey ****ty, New Joizy
     
Mar 17, 2011 23:56 |  #4

haha yeah the stripe is definitely appealing :)

however, im guessing you would be at least a few months or more away from upgrading to full frame, specially if you got the 60D. you can always re-sell the 17-55 when you acquire a FF body and get the 24-70 with the money you get, or spend a bit more to get the 16-35 2.8L II for even better perspective.


My Gear and Feedback 

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RafaPolit
Goldmember
Avatar
1,668 posts
Joined Jun 2005
Location: Quito, Ecuador
     
Mar 18, 2011 02:41 |  #5

If the decision needs to be made a month from now as you said, some of the rumors could have dispelled about a 24-70 mII and a EF-S 15-60 f2.8 that have been floating the air.

I for one was in your exact same predicament a few weeks ago and decided for the 17-55 for both the range and IS. I must confess that the reports about the quality of the zoom ring are accurate, its not really that impressive, but on every other front, it just is a fantastic lens.

I'm almost in love with the 17-55, ridiculously sharp even at f2.8!

Rafa.


Rebel T2i | EF-S 17-55 IS | EF 70-200 f4L | EF-S 10-22 | 430EX II |
Picture Galleries at:
www.rafaelpolit.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KVN ­ Photo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,940 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
     
Mar 18, 2011 02:48 |  #6

+1 for the 17-55, the red ring is nice, but Image Quality is nicer.


X-Pro1 + 18-55 f/2.8-4 OIS + 55-200 f/3.8-4.5 OIS
TS-E 24 f/3.5L II + XF 35 f/1.4 + XF 56 f/1.2
Sony RX100 II + G12
Travel the world!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bokehlicious
Senior Member
Avatar
809 posts
Joined Jan 2011
     
Mar 18, 2011 03:13 |  #7

17-55




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mfunnell
Senior Member
Avatar
375 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Mar 18, 2011 03:24 |  #8

The 17-55/2.8 is a gem of a lens, but (obviously) suited to crop-factor cameras only. Depending on your intentions and requirements this may or may not matter. For example, if you intend using your 60D for video, the IS will help avoid viewer seasickness. Personally I use FF and cropped sensor cameras for different purposes and in different ways, so find my 17-55 very useful even though it doesn't work with FF.

...Mike


Some digital cameras, some film cameras, some lenses & other kit.
Day-to-day photos on flickr (external link), some older stuff at dA (external link).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lucasmcd
Senior Member
Avatar
335 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Melbourne Australia
     
Mar 18, 2011 03:28 as a reply to  @ Bokehlicious's post |  #9

17-55 , its wider and has IS and is a hidden L ;)


Olympus OMD EM-5

12-50 , 25 F1.4 , 60 F2.8 Macro , 75 F1.8 , Tripod 3LT Brian , Lee Seven5 .

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
device01
Member
130 posts
Joined Feb 2007
     
Mar 18, 2011 03:36 |  #10

I would go with the 17-55. UNLESS you have plans to go FF real soon, then 24-70.


Canon 5D MKIII - Canon 7D with BG-E7 grip - 24-70 2.8L - 85 1.2L MKII- 35 1.4L - Tokina 11-16 2.8 - 600EX-RT - 580EXII - 430EX - AB1600 - VagabondII - HO Beauty Dish - Cybersyncs - 'Big Mama' Westcott Apollo Softbox - other modifiers

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hennie
Goldmember
1,259 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 84
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Spijkenisse, The Netherlands
     
Mar 18, 2011 03:47 |  #11

I had to make a similar choice a couple of months ago.
Went to a local photoshop and tried them out both on a 60D.
The 24-70 just feels good, I found statement of it being heavy to be exagerated.
The mm between 55 and 70 are very nice to have for portraiture, the way I shoot makes 55 mm a little to short, having both a 100/2.0 and 24-105/4.0 compensated in that respect.
I did not have anything better than 5.6 in the 17-24 range wich was a limitation that did hurt.
Both are optically excelent and I did not expect that I would be hold back by either of them.
Handholdability under limited light pulled it for me towards the 17-55, stationary subjects can be captured with 1/30 and still be sharp because of the IS.
Finally went for a 17-55 and did not regret, my copy lives up to its reputation and I am very happy with it.
It might even be that because of it, and no equivalent on FF that my next cam will be a 7D and not a 5D.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,376 views & 0 likes for this thread
17-55 f/2.8 or 24-70 f/2.8L?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is 360nomad
1243 guests, 231 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.