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

JoeW wrote in post #8840301
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.

You're right... Maybe I was just being a prick. I'm sorry. I shoot primes for my $$$ shots and I keep the 24-105 on my 50D all of the time for a walk around. I never take my 1ds3 out of the studio and it's never seen anything that wasn't a prime. For a cropper I seriously suggest the 24-105 paired with the 10-22. I understand that neither gets you 2.8 but UWA slower shutters dont realllllly matter unless your subject is moving. All in all I would say that either choice would be a good one (unless you get a bad copy of the 24-70) and keep in mind that alot of people think they have a bad copy (myself included) due to user error ie. non IS on the long end. Anyway, sorry to take over your post/question. Happy shooting.

The idea of a 24-105 and a 10-22 would have really been a best bet for my style of shooting on a crop camera. I think I'd have really enjoyed this combo a lot--and I think I'd really miss the long end if I had a 17-55.

Most of my shots end up being in the longer end. Having the option to go wide with another lens would be perfect. On my 5d II, I find myself at the long end of my 17-40 more often than not when I switch from a longer lens to get that wide impact. I love having that lens and the ability to go wide in my kit, but the versatility of the 24-105 is hard to beat.

Justin, you have got to be kidding me. Woke up on the wrong side of the bed?

Why on Earth would it be inconceivable to need f/2.8 on a wide-angle lens? If you need f/2.8, you need f/2.8, zoom lens or prime. Not a terrible concept to understand, really.

JustinTEleven wrote in post #8840044
You can shoot at nearly 1 second shutter without motion blur.

Maybe you can.

JustinTEleven wrote in post #8840044
If you want fast glass buy primes.

Primes can't zoom. Some situations call out for versatility and speed. What obvious choice does one have? A good f/2.8 zoom.

JustinTEleven wrote in post #8840044
I'm so sick of seeing people trying to "have his cake and eat it too.

Stop being bitter about nothing.

JustinTEleven wrote in post #8840044
Lenses do not make a photographer better

No one said they did.

JustinTEleven wrote in post #8840044
and in most cases most photog rookies do not shoot in low light without a flash so why do they need 2.8?

Why make such gross generalisations?

Even if a flash is needed, f/2.8 would allow you to let in more ambient than f/4.

JustinTEleven wrote in post #8840570
Maybe I was just being a prick.

No disrespect intended, but I think you really were.

JustinTEleven wrote in post #8840570
I understand that neither gets you 2.8 but UWA slower shutters dont realllllly matter unless your subject is moving.

And they often are.

Collin85 wrote in post #8842635
Justin, you have got to be kidding me. Woke up on the wrong side of the bed?

Why on Earth would it be inconceivable to need f/2.8 on a wide-angle lens? If you need f/2.8, you need f/2.8, zoom lens or prime. Not a terrible concept to understand, really.


Maybe you can.


Primes can't zoom. Some situations call out for versatility and speed. What obvious choice does one have? A good f/2.8 zoom.


Stop being bitter about nothing.


No one said they did.


Why make such gross generalisations?

Even if a flash is needed, f/2.8 would allow you to let in more ambient than f/4.


No disrespect intended, but I think you really were.


And they often are.

I think I am going to save this. Sorry for being crabby yesterday =-) 24-70 is a fine lens but without IS it can be difficult to get the "perfect" shot on a crop body. Needless to say you will enjoy it if you choose to go that route.

People have shot without IS for YEARS. I think we still can shoot without it. IS is one of those luxuries that fits the "wow, this is nice" category rather than "omg, whatever did I do without it?" one.

I have had the 17-55 for 2 years now and that is the lens that spends the most time on my 40D and now 7D. It is a great lens. I do have 1 speck of dust on the inside now and it bugs me but you cannot see it in pictures so I need to get over it. The focus is fast and sharp. If I had a FF camera I would get the 24-70 I think.