yet another "which lens" thread

^ lol, does it matter?
it was a great lens, really was. but, in the back of my mind, i always felt it overlapped with the 24-105 in FL, even though it was so much faster. it was my "inside" lens when the flash+24-105 didnt quite cut it. but since ive decided to switch to a more versatile (ie. 2.8 zoom) lens, figured ill free up the cash. who knows, maybe ill buy another one down the line.

ekinnyc wrote in post #14603911
^ lol, does it matter?

it totally matters...knowing why something didn't work for someone makes it easier to determine what will...

and saying that they overlap is nonsense...different tools for different needs...there's not a single instance that the two could do the same thing...yeah you could stop down the sigma to f4, but then you'd have to turn the IS off of the 24-105L...so they're not really even close to similar

but it seems like you prefer zooms over primes anyways as they're more versatile for you...just know...even at f2.8 you'll probably still need to use your flash indoors...

ekinnyc wrote in post #14603731
thanks everyone for the thoughts thus far. please, keep them coming, i want to make this an informed decision, but partly based on everyone's experiences.

not sure what you mean by this?

the lens is made for a full frame camera, and not as optimized as the 17-55, which is made for crop cameras. Essentially it comes down to value of a lens. The 17-55 brings a whole lot more value and performance over the 24-70.

Pros:
IS (this is a huge advantage)
17mm (7mm advantage on the wide end is a lot)
weight, the 24-70 is really cumbersome to say the least
price

Cons:
Build quality
weather sealing
55mm (15mm disadvantage on long end, matters a lot less than the wide end)

I think the pros outweigh the cons by a large margin.

just bumping this thread

so, sold off my remaining 24-105, and went back to the dilemma of 17-55 or 24-70. i borrowed a coworker's 17-55 and went for a walk around midtown nyc during lunch yesterday. 2.8 is lovely, especially inside of st. patricks, and im super excited about getting a 2.8 zoom. as for the FL... as nice as the 17mm wide end was, i constantly kept wishing for reach. also, after using the built-like-a-tank-24-105, the 17-55 definitely let its build quality be known. the zoom ring lacked the tightness of an L, and the barrel had some instances of creep (though i guess thats just this copy).
call it L-envy, but i will be purchasing a 24-70, and i think i will be quite quite happy with it, even on a cropper

eventually, i will add a WA as funds allow, to help out on the wide end... likely a tokina 11-16 2.8

ekinnyc wrote in post #14772679
i borrowed a coworker's 17-55 and went for a walk around midtown nyc during lunch yesterday. 2.8 is lovely, especially inside of st. patricks, and im super excited about getting a 2.8 zoom. as for the FL... as nice as the 17mm wide end was, i constantly kept wishing for reach. also, after using the built-like-a-tank-24-105, the 17-55 definitely let its build quality be known. the zoom ring lacked the tightness of an L, and the barrel had some instances of creep (though i guess thats just this copy).
call it L-envy, but i will be purchasing a 24-70, and i think i will be quite quite happy with it, even on a cropper

I'm pretty sure those are common on the 17-55.. My zoom ring has a strange torque at about 24mm -- I almost sent it back, but later learned that that is normal for that lens. Mine only creeps when completely vertical, so, while it does creep, it is not an issue for me.

The 17-55 makes up for those deficiencies (IMHO) in the AF speed and IQ.
But, if it is reach you want, you really can't go wrong with the 24-70. Pair that with any one of the good APS-C UWAs from Canon, Sigma or Tokina and you will be set.

hairy_moth wrote in post #14773090
I'm pretty sure those are common on the 17-55.. My zoom ring has a strange torque at about 24mm -- I almost sent it back, but later learned that that is normal for that lens. Mine only creeps when completely vertical, so, while it does creep, it is not an issue for me.

The 17-55 makes up for those deficiencies (IMHO) in the AF speed and IQ.
But, if it is reach you want, you really can't go wrong with the 24-70. Pair that with any one of the good APS-C UWAs from Canon, Sigma or Tokina and you will be set.

yeah, i knew about them beforehand from reading the forums, but its one thing to read about it, and one to actually experience it. until i tried it, i couldnt imagine it being that terrible, but once i had it in hand, i wasnt happy. the IQ is fantastic indeed (i plan on contributing to the sample image thread), but i think i need reach and a red ring for true happiness