Help me decide: EFS 17-85 vs EF 24-70 L (both f/2.8)

I have a 30D and have been thinking of upgrading to the 5D-II before the 7D was announced. Now, I'm not sure which one to go with. Tending toward the 7D but only about 60% convinced.

But that's not the question I'm posing.

I currently have several lenses, but my carrying-around lens is the older EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM.

I have been feeling the need to get a faster lens, so was originally thinking of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM -- especially considering that I might move up to the 5D-II.

But then I've read some comments from users here that they like the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. The advantage of this lens would be that it would give the wider angle for the 30D and the 7D if that's the path I choose.

So, any thoughts on the pros/cons and advice on:

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

Vs.

EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

The cost difference is only a couple hundred dollars, so that's not really a factor.

TIA

if you have crop then get the 17-55... buy for what you have now not for what you will own...

buckeyesky wrote in post #8839668
I have been feeling the need to get a faster lens, so was originally thinking of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM -- especially considering that I might move up to the 5D-II.

But then I've read some comments from users here that they like the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. The advantage of this lens would be that it would give the wider angle for the 30D and the 7D if that's the path I choose.

Looks like you pretty much understand the situation. The 17-55 is a no-brainer for crop due to its 'more appropriate' focal range (and the IS), but the 24-70 would be more suitable if you were moving to FF very soon. So really, the choice is upto you. Are you going to move to FF soon or not? If not, then I'd go 17-55, hands down. Otherwise, the 24-70 is a very suitable choice.

As a caveat, if you rarely shoot landscapes and shoot more portraits, the 24-70 would also work very well on APS-C, since you'd less likely miss the 17-24mm range.

Buy for what you need, not what people say is the proper lens for your format. There are a lot of people using the 24-70 on crop bodies and I bet they don't feel like they made a mistake. Go through your photos and make a note of what focal range you use the most. If you tend to be in the 40-85mm range most of the time, the 17-55 is not going to work all that well. If you are in the 17-23mm range most of the time, the 24-70 is not going to work for you. Decide how big a factor IS is as well. Neither lens will be as versatile in terms of focal length as your 17-85 is, so you need to figure out what end you can give up the easiest.

buckeyesky wrote in post #8839668
I have a 30D and have been thinking of upgrading to the 5D-II before the 7D was announced. Now, I'm not sure which one to go with. Tending toward the 7D but only about 60% convinced.

But that's not the question I'm posing.

I currently have several lenses, but my carrying-around lens is the older EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM.

I have been feeling the need to get a faster lens, so was originally thinking of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM -- especially considering that I might move up to the 5D-II.

But then I've read some comments from users here that they like the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. The advantage of this lens would be that it would give the wider angle for the 30D and the 7D if that's the path I choose.

So, any thoughts on the pros/cons and advice on:

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

Vs.

EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

The cost difference is only a couple hundred dollars, so that's not really a factor.

TIA

I cannot understand why people make such unclear posts/questions? What do you intend to shoot? I assume you want a walkaround lens.... If so then do not get the 24-70 with your crop. The 24-70 was my first lens and I had a crop. I wasn't satisfied with it at the time, needless to say I've bought and sold 3 of them so far. If you want a longer reach lens get the 24-105IS and if you want the wider angle get the 10-22 EFS.... You do not need 2.8 on a zoom... That's what primes are for.

JustinTEleven wrote in post #8839965
You do not need 2.8 on a zoom... That's what primes are for.

I don't understand this logic. If he can have his cake and eat it too, why not?

Collin85 wrote in post #8840021
I don't understand this logic. If he can have his cake and eat it too, why not?

Why on earth do you need 2.8 on a wide angle lens? You can shoot at nearly 1 second shutter without motion blur. If you want fast glass buy primes. I'm so sick of seeing people trying to "have his cake and eat it too"... Lenses do not make a photographer better and in most cases most photog rookies do not shoot in low light without a flash so why do they need 2.8? bokeh? please....

JustinTEleven wrote in post #8840044
Why on earth do you need 2.8 on a wide angle lens? You can shoot at nearly 1 second shutter without motion blur. If you want fast glass buy primes. I'm so sick of seeing people trying to "have his cake and eat it too"... Lenses do not make a photographer better and in most cases most photog rookies do not shoot in low light without a flash so why do they need 2.8? bokeh? please....

why not have a 2.8 on a wide angle? get off your pedestal. i own a wide angle with a 2.8.. got a problem with that? want to know why i use it? because it comes in handy in the dark... especially when shooting in places like concerts or other places where there is a no flash policy- say a wedding... you cant use a flash during the ceremony....having a 2.8 wide angle comes in handy quite a bit.. if you dont want one then dont get one...


EDIT: I have looked over your posts and you seem to attack people on this forum. I suggest you take some time to read and learn before posting a bit..

Get the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I just started shooting with my 7D only 2 days ago, but have had some opportunities to put it thru its paces. Last night I took it out to a beer festival 'round here. And got to shoot some live bands and friends and just partiers. I took only my 17-55 f/2.8 IS with me because I wanted to pack super light (no bag, no extra lenses, no flash (not usual for me), only my memory card case in my pocket). Lemme tell you all, this thing's 2000ISO is cleaner than my 40D's 800-1250ISO. I was REALLY impressed by that. Plus with the new AF system (yeah its still gonna hunt sometimes in the lowlight, but it didn't give me too many problems) and the VERY clean 2000-4000ISO's + the f/2.8 IS, I was taking pics @ 1/6th that were acceptable and shots from 1/20th on up were super sharp. I used the pop-up flash a couple times, but for the bulk I shot everything without flash and it was lovely.

canonnoob wrote in post #8840066
why not have a 2.8 on a wide angle? get off your pedestal. i own a wide angle with a 2.8.. got a problem with that? want to know why i use it? because it comes in handy in the dark... especially when shooting in places like concerts or other places where there is a no flash policy- say a wedding... you cant use a flash during the ceremony....having a 2.8 wide angle comes in handy quite a bit.. if you dont want one then dont get one...

LOL wedding photographers make me laugh generally... and trust me I have more glass than you ever will. If someone wants a good lens and is a rookie why would 2.8 be an issue? Doesn't make sense. It seems like a "pedestal" aperture for a zoom lens, meanwhile it's insufficent IMO. 1.0, 1.2, 1.4 is where it's at... For a zoom lens who cares. I have had 3, get that THREEE 24-70's and not one was spot on like my primes and to be honest with you the 24-105 IS is better in every aspect other than bokeh.

Back to the OP get the 17-55 or the 24-105. You may be unhappy with the lack of a wide shot with the 24-105 on a crop though so I would suggest a UWA either tokina (if you want 2.8) or canon 10-22 to suppliment it.

Justin, there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with having a fast aperture on a zoom. If this is your logic, then you'll be picking on sports shooters for wanting a 70-200 2.8 as well. You may think it's silly for YOUR needs, but for others, it's perfectly logical. Laugh all you want at wedding photographers, but they choose their tools that they need for their job and shooting style, and if it happens that zooms with a constant fast aperture fits their needs, who are you to look down on their work?

OP, for what it's worth, I have a 24-70 2.8 and I've used it on my 40D and my 5D both - and to be perfectly honest, I don't miss the lack of the wide end when I use it on my 40D.

Zansho wrote in post #8840241
but they choose their tools that they need for their job and shooting style, and if it happens that zooms with a constant fast aperture fits their needs, who are you to look down on their work?

very well said...

This thread just got shorter by several posts. Keep your comments germane to the topic and refrain from flaming each other.

JustinTEleven wrote in post #8840044
Why on earth do you need 2.8 on a wide angle lens? You can shoot at nearly 1 second shutter without motion blur. If you want fast glass buy primes. I'm so sick of seeing people trying to "have his cake and eat it too"... Lenses do not make a photographer better and in most cases most photog rookies do not shoot in low light without a flash so why do they need 2.8? bokeh? please....

plenty of reasons to use 2.8, though I admittedly don't use it as much these days. Was really wishing for my 24-70 (which I left at home) the other day at an event. Yes, I used flash some, but would have enjoyed a bit more natural light and 2.8 would have allowed me to shoot with a faster shutter speed. I have shot primes (I started out with camera that was around before you were born and zooms were expensive and not good) and I love the added versatility of a zoom.

The real trade-off for me is the portability/weight vs. focal length. For me in most cases the 24-105 wins on a full frame, but I tend to shoot more close-ups and less very wide shots. Back to the original poster's question, I'm really not sure what I'd choose. I suggested my nephew get the 17-55 and he's been happy with it. I always stuck to EF mount lenses as I had a goal of moving to full frame--I had the luxury of not shooting tons of very wide shots.