17-55 vs 24-70 (@7D, 4weddings)

(For an 7D and the mainly job is weddings)
(I will not upgrade my body within 1.5/2 years)

17-55 vs 24-70

Don't know what lens will do the job better.
The aspect that bothers me more is the focal length...

Will be the 24mm the minimum aperture enough?

Other aspect, if I'll choose the 17-55 I'd be saving money, and afford an 85mm 1.8 or upgrade my 50mm 1.8 to 50mm 1.4.

What advises can you give me?
Thanks.

I'm in europe and my reference prices are, e.g: http://www.digitalwond​erworld.de/

24-70 on the 7D (or any other APS-C sensor camera) will be somewhat long. It'll be good for portraits, but not so great for groups unless you back up a few meters. Question is... will you always have room to "back up"?

The 17-55 on the 7D acts like a 27-88mm on full-frame so it's considered the "standard zoom" for a crop camera. You have the added benefit of the IS (which I believe is rated at 3-stops). Assuming you get a good copy, you should be getting very sharp photos even shooting at f/2.8.

The copy of the 24-70 I had tried out briefly wasn't as sharp at f/2.8... but that could have just been my copy.

There are 4 typical complaints for the 17-55:
1) Build-quality. It is plastic (which makes it much lighter than the 24-70) but some people find it difficult to pay the asking price and not have something that feels like a rock.
2) Dust... (which is almost completely avoidable/preventable by slapping on a good UV filter)
3) Flare... (if you're shooting at/near the direction of the sun... you may or may not like what you see depending if you like flares)
4) IS motor... some has question the IS's durability. To combat/counter that is to turn off IS if you're not shooting in conditions that warrant/require IS. But should it ever crap out on you, it's not too expensive to replace.

What other lenses will you be shooting with? Any back-up bodies?

I'll vote for 17-55 IS on a crop body everytime.

I kept my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and sold my 24-70mm f/2.8L to fund my 7D camera.

I really like the wider range of the 17-55mm and love the IS capability but, consider it a bit short. That is where the second camera with a bit longer lens comes into play. A 70-200mm f/2.8L IS ii lens is a perfect match for weddings but the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens can do the job if you are proficient using flash.

YOU DO HAVE A SECOND CAMERA, DON'T YOU? Equipment redundancy is the name of the game in wedding photography.

MURPHY'S LAW OF PHOTOGRAPHY: The probability of a piece of equipment failing is in a direct relationship to the importance of the shoot and in an reverse relationship to the availability of backup equipment.

If you don't have any long lens with you. The 24-70mm will be my pick. You will benefit with the extra reach. And for group photo, either walk back to zoom out, or get a used sigma 10-20mm to assist you with that. I found ultra wide angle is very useful during a wedding shoot, especially when you want to capture the wedding banquet. Another important equipment will be a flash.

Thank you all.

(At my sig, you can see my gear list)
Yes, I do have another body, 40D.

I know the built quality is not the same at 17-55. But It doesn't bother me, along as the lens kepts live and fine..
The most important feature for me, at this range, is the f/2.8, not the IS.

In the next year I might get a 70-200mm f/4L IS.
When/if i get some profit from photography, then the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS.

This year I'm only the assistant photographer - maybe next year I'll be able to do the task solo.

Since I'm the assistant, I've playing around the 50mm f/1.8 for portrait shoots.
As I mentioned before I would like to upgrade this to f/1.4.
I also own a Canon 10-22, and use it with the crowd 'partying' mainly.

While you're at it, you might want to look at the Sigma 17-50mm OS F2.8 instead of the Canon 17-55, seems to be a slightly superior and a significantly cheaper lens.
Or alternatively, you could just go for a couple of shorter focal length primes, which is what I'd do, but then again that's just me.

17-55 all the way. You never know when you need that extra bit of space.

The 17-55 is an easy choice for the 7D and it makes a fantastic all round kit when combined with the 70-200 f4IS.

Since you have the 10-22 and intend on getting a 70-200 soon, I would definitely pick the 24-70. You will not be sad about not having wider angle because for wide-angle shots you have the 10-22. The 24-70 is an amazing lens and a good range for what you're doing.

Put the 24-70 on your 7D and the 10-22 on your 40D and you'll be set!

On the crop body the 17-55MM f/2.8 EF-S IS wins hands down. I have shot over 2 dozen weddings with the 17-55MM first on a 30D and now on my 7D. I call it my "wedding" lens and wouldn't dream of doing a wedding without it! As for durability I have had my copy for five years now without any issues whatsoever!

Leave the 24-70MM to the full frame bodies.

If you have the 10-22 I would get the 24-70. You have plenty of wideness there.


I shoot with just my 24-70 and 70-200 about 90 percent of the time - weddings included.

I had the 17-55 and traded it for the 24-70.

for the price, I think the L lens is a better investment. The EF-S is nice, but if you shoot a lot I don't think the build quality is up to snuff (compared to the L, anyway). That's why I got rid of it.

The 17-55 is great though, and the IS is nice for shooting stuff that isn't moving in low light. It was just about useless for me since I shoot sports so much though, so it wasn't a worthwhile feature to me.

I have a long blog entry about the 24-70/17-55 question on my blog. There's a link below if you're bored.

EDIT: oh yeah, I shoot with two 7Ds, by the way.

Get the 17-55 2.8 IS. My copy is sharper than the 24-70 I had. While a wedding is going on and you need a wide shot do you expect to be changing lenses? On a crop the 24-70 is to long for weddings IMO.

jase1125 wrote in post #12695220
Get the 17-55 2.8 IS. My copy is sharper than the 24-70 I had. While a wedding is going on and you need a wide shot do you expect to be changing lenses? On a crop the 24-70 is to long for weddings IMO.

That's why shooting wedding is always better off with 2 body or an assistant photographer. Whether the 24-70mm is too long for a wedding, that depends on how big the venue area is...

In a church environment, better off with the 24-70 or even the 70-200mm, since you won't stand beside the couple to take shots when they are doing their ceremony up on the stage. Or when the bride is walking down the isle, you won't be standing in front of her either, you need something that have longer reach to help you get out of the way but still capture the moment.

For banquet, the 17mm is not gonna be wide enough for some situations. Especially with huge group shots, there comes the ultra wide angle like the 10-20mm. Not to mention, capture the whole dinning table and everybody with one shots.

Examples that I found on a google search:

i bet this question would never be asked if canon drew a stupid red ring around the 17-55