EF 24-70 or EF-S 17-55 help

Hi ,I am in a bit of dillema ,what to buy EF24-70 F4 L IS or EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS , my work is out side , fishing trips . That will go on a EOS 60 D. For portraits I have a 50 mm,1,8 . Thank you .

On a 60D, taking into account the 1.6 crop factor, I would think the 17-55 f/2.8 would likely be more useful. That would yield an "equivalent" field of view, as would be seen on a full frame body, over 27-88mm.

I second what John said. On your camera, the 24-70 would appear to have the view of a 38 mm lens on the wide end. That isn't wide at all for outdoors where you would want a wide angle to take in the views

I third that,the EF-S 17-55 is the best EF-S lens available and is a perfect match to the 60D,it's the combination I have and 90% of my shots are from this combination.

Des

It depends on whether you tend to shoot wider or longer. I never really liked the 17/18-50/55 range on my camera, and have been much happier with a lens that offers more range. I recently had to make a similar choice to yours. For the last several years I've been using a Tamron 28-75 on my 7D. However, the Tamron's slow focusing was a problem, and based on the recommendations from this forum for the 17-55, I started using my old 18-55 kit lens again, to see if I'd be happy with the focal range. After a trial lasting a couple of weeks, the answer was a resounding "no", and I eventually bought a Canon 24-105L instead of the 17-55. I'm very happy with it; for me, the broader range was more important than the wider end of the lens. In your case, if you're thinking of using the lens in a fishing boat, you might want to decide if 24 mm is wide enough. In my experience, 24 mm or 28 mm is plenty wide enough for landscape shots; it's the close quarters of the fishing boat that might be a factor for you.

There's no perfect solution here. It's a matter of identifying the compromise you can best live with.

You might also want to consider the 15-85 for versatility on a crop...again - all depends on what you intend to shoot as there just isn't a perfect "do everything" zoom combination.

Ken brings up a good point, you might want to look at the 15-85. Great focal length if you could do without the 2.8

I'll 4th the 17-55mm first off I've owned the 24-70mm on my 7D. My thinking was that'll go full frame at some point. Didn't really work out that way. I found that the 24-70 (38-112mm) range just wasn't wide enough as an all round lens but great for portraits. I ended up selling it and bought the 17-55mm(27-88) IS which i total love, also having IS and it weighing less I seem to have more images thats are keepers, yes i think i've got shaky hands in my old age . I'll most-likely get the 24-70mm when i finally go full frame.

Agreed on the 17-55, but for a different reason.

If 55mm isn't long enough for a shot it's easy to crop a bit in PP to get the equivalent of a 70mm field of view. Your 60D has plenty of pixels to allow cropping without loss of quality.

If 24mm isn't wide enough you've got bit of a struggle to simulate a 17mm fov...

-js

Thank you ,I will go for 17-55 .

I agree with the Canon 17-55mm lens. I have the Canon 60D and it is a great range for me. Sure it would be nicer sometimes to have a little more reach, but with shaky hands, on a moving boat, the image quality is beautiful with the 17-55. Best lens I have ever used.