24-70 mk2 v 17-55 on crop

Just wondering how the mark ii 'brick' would compare to the 17-55 on my 7d. I'm pondering spending and am not wowed by anything in particular lately bodywise, so has anybody done any comparisons of these two. People always advise the 17-55 against any other lens on a crop, but how about now the new 24-70 has hit the shelves, will people now change their advice ??
Ian

I don't think the quality of the optics are what lead people to recommend the 17-55 (or similar focal lengths), but the focal lengths themselves.

Nightdiver13 wrote in post #15070412
I don't think the quality of the optics are what lead people to recommend the 17-55 (or similar focal lengths), but the focal lengths themselves.

I think it's a combination of optics, features, and focal length on a crop. The 17-55 is a dynamite lens optically possibly a tad sharper than the 24-70mkI and with the addition on IS and a focal range more suited to a crop, it's a clear winner for a crop. The 24-70mkII might be a different beast if the early reviews are accurate and this has become Canon's benchmark lens for sharpness beating out even primes. It makes the decision more difficult, but then there is 2.5~3x the price to worry about. Is this really a 3k lens?

gjl711 wrote in post #15070454
The 24-70mkII might be a different beast if the early reviews are accurate and this has become Canon's benchmark lens for sharpness beating out even primes. It makes the decision more difficult, but then there is 2.5~3x the price to worry about. Is this really a 3k lens?

Thats what I'm thinking. Can a mix of the 24-70ii plus the 70-200ii be the ultimate set up unless you need super thin DOF. We've seen the 70-200 being favourably compared to the 135, can the new 24-70 replace the 35 and 50 L's. With 2 super high IQ zooms will they cancel the gap that primes held over the old zooms......

h14nha wrote in post #15070764
Thats what I'm thinking. Can a mix of the 24-70ii plus the 70-200ii be the ultimate set up unless you need super thin DOF. We've seen the 70-200 being favourably compared to the 135, can the new 24-70 replace the 35 and 50 L's. With 2 super high IQ zooms will they cancel the gap that primes held over the old zooms......

Go for it and let me know. I've sort of been wanting to do something similar.

Why not the Tamron 24-70 VC?

i guess it depends on what you shoot. but when I used a crop i needed something wider than 24mm. while i am sure you would benefit from the (probably) superior optics, you may find the 24mm a little limiting on the wide side. why not an real wide like the sigma 10-20 or canon 10-22 along with the original 24-70? price-wise probably come out to the same...

aboss3 wrote in post #15070918
Why not the Tamron 24-70 VC?

Because I don't think it would be any better than my 17-55

projectmayhem713 wrote in post #15070939
i guess it depends on what you shoot. but when I used a crop i needed something wider than 24mm. while i am sure you would benefit from the (probably) superior optics, you may find the 24mm a little limiting on the wide side. why not an real wide like the sigma 10-20 or canon 10-22 along with the original 24-70? price-wise probably come out to the same...

I already have a Sigma 10-20, and I don't think the 24-70 mki will be any better my 17-55, so i wont be any better off.......... The point I was trying to make is now there is a superior 24-70, will peoples advice about the best walkaround for a crop change ?? Is the slightly longer wide end a good enough trade off for the IQ upgrade of the 24-70ii ??

if you're looking for something better than the 17-55, that tells me you need to enter the FF realm.... because there are no better zooms.

I owned my 24-70L and 17-55mm IS for a couple of years and usually ended up using the 24-70L in the studio and the 17-55mm as a walk around lens.

I finally sold the 24-70L, not because it did not produce excellent imagery but because of the weight and limitations of the 24mm wide side when using a 1.6x camera...

h14nha wrote in post #15070379
Just wondering how the mark ii 'brick' would compare to the 17-55 on my 7d. I'm pondering spending and am not wowed by anything in particular lately bodywise, so has anybody done any comparisons of these two. People always advise the 17-55 against any other lens on a crop, but how about now the new 24-70 has hit the shelves, will people now change their advice ??
Ian

Depends on what you are looking for. 24-70 isn't nearly as wide as the 17-55, so if you don't need that coverage, then I guess it's up to you.

Nightdiver13 wrote in post #15070412
I don't think the quality of the optics are what lead people to recommend the 17-55 (or similar focal lengths), but the focal lengths themselves.

I don't see any lack of optical quality in the 17-55. I had a 17-40 L and sold it to buy the 17-55 because it's simply a better fit on a crop body. The 17-40 is a great lens, but it's both slower and it just wasn't as sharp as the 17-55 is in my experience. I've not used the 24-70, so I can't comment on the technicalities of it. For me as a primarily natural light shooter, the IS alone is a selling point for the 17-55.

I've been having similar thoughts...I have the 10-22 and a 70-200 f/4. It seems the 24-70 would be the perfect fit between the two. However for the $$ difference it is hard to find a good reason not to go with the 17-55 based on it's stellar reviews.

My friend,
I had 17-55 on my 50D for a while and it was the sharpest zoom lense I had ever shoot with. the IS worked perfect and it was fast enough to shoot at any low light situation.
until my camera bag was stolen and I lost everything except my 430EX.
Then I bought a 5D II and a 24-70 I. to be honest, I'd rather have my 50D+17-55 back.
In my opinion, 24-70 II at best will be as sharp as 17-55 , and it is still without IS.
I don't think 24-70 II can add to your IQ as much as it costs you.

Nightdiver13 wrote in post #15070412
I don't think the quality of the optics are what lead people to recommend the 17-55 (or similar focal lengths), but the focal lengths themselves.

Disagree.. There is definitely a difference in quality of optics. Otherwise why wouldn't people just get a 15-85mm or one of those do it all super zooms.. 18-200mm for hundreds of dollars cheaper