Own a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, is there any place for a EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM?

I've recently been lucky enough to purchase a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM for little money. I previously had an eye on the new EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM for general walkabout (as it's close to 35mm on a crop sensor and cheap!). I know how amazing primes can be (I have the 50mm 1.4) but wondered if there is any benefit to having the 24mm prime too when the 17-55mm shoots beautifully at 24mm itself at f/2.8 (and with IS)?

I'm not intending on purchasing anything else in the short-term but I'm just interested to understand whether a prime is better than a telephoto lens at the same focal length and aperture.

I've owned a 24-70 2.8 for about four years now - so the full frame equivalent to your 17-55 2.8 - and bought the 40mm Pancake (again, equivalent to the 24mm you're interested in) about six months ago for a lightweight travel lens.

In both cases, the zoom will do the same focal length and aperture as the prime. I can't say that the prime has an edge in terms of image quality ... especially because I haven't bothered assessing either with a test chart or anything like that. Both provide me with results I'm satisfied with and that's enough for me.

What I can say is that since purchasing the Pancake, my 24-70mm only comes out for work where the flexibility of a zoom comes in handy. The 40mm focal length is very versatile as a day-to-day walk-around lens. I didn't feel I was missing anything wider during a week in Portugal and it'll do landscapes and portraits as I've found during the past two weeks back home in the UK, where I only packed the Pancake. I love the miniscule size and lightweight nature of the Pancake, being tiny it's also more discrete for things like street photography.

Cracking little lens - I'd definitely recommend you pick up the 24mm on a crop camera.

I don't see the point at all unless you just have no other need of the $150.

The only possible reason I would own both would be if you have situations where you consider the 17-55 to be too large and you want to mount a smaller lens. Even then, it's money tied up in a lens that is almost redundant with the 17-55, but for the size difference.

And IMO, once you are carrying a dSLR, you are consigned to a bag and the size of the lens (within reason) doesn't make much difference. It's not like there are any Canon dSLRs that can be slipped into a pocket when the 24/2.8 is mounted.

I carry the 40mm version and a 5D around without a bag a lot of the time. A pocket no, but it also fits nicely into my work bag where the zoom doesn't which means I can go out shooting after work without carrying a camera bag - just my regular work bag with a camera in it. Again, pocket no, but I can put my coat on over the top of this camera/lens over my shoulder/neck if it starts raining while I'm out with it - tried that with the zoom a few times and it wasn't very comfortable! Your Coat May Vary.

Having this tiny lens means the camera leaves the house with me a lot more times than it did before I bought it, and the results have me happy enough to leave the zoom at home.

Thanks all. That clears that up for me.

The portability really appeals to me although it'll be a while until I buy anything else - the 70d and 17-55mm only came about through some rather undignified grovelling!

honestly i've considered the 24mm mainly just because it's cheap...but if you're only getting it because of the smaller size, i feel like getting an eos-m with a 22mm for a hundred dollars more may make more sense

sa_20v wrote in post #17363714
I've recently been lucky enough to purchase a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM for little money. I previously had an eye on the new EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM for general walkabout (as it's close to 35mm on a crop sensor and cheap!). I know how amazing primes can be (I have the 50mm 1.4) but wondered if there is any benefit to having the 24mm prime too when the 17-55mm shoots beautifully at 24mm itself at f/2.8 (and with IS)?

I'm not intending on purchasing anything else in the short-term but I'm just interested to understand whether a prime is better than a telephoto lens at the same focal length and aperture.

Heya,

I would only consider it if you specifically need the physical size reduction.

It's not sharper in a significant way compared to the 17-55 F2.8, which is a superb lens.
F2.8 is slow for a prime in this focal range. If it were F1.4, F1.8 or F2, it would have been way more interesting. But F2.8 is sort of meh.'

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17365017
F2.8 is slow for a prime in this focal range. If it were F1.4, F1.8 or F2, it would have been way more interesting. But F2.8 is sort of meh.'

Yeah, that's exactly what some of the reviews on YouTube have stated. I guess at 1.4 it would be twice the price!

sa_20v wrote in post #17365084
Yeah, that's exactly what some of the reviews on YouTube have stated. I guess at 1.4 it would be twice the price!

Heya,

I have full frame & APS-C, and I have the 40 F2.8 STM as well. I like it. It's nice. But F2.8 definitely is not the same as having F1.4 and F2 on primes which is more readily available and more unique to primes. F2.8 is zoom territory and slower prime range. Sure, it allows for a very small lens, which is very cool and nice, but ultimately I don't find a pancake being any "smaller" for me when I'm attaching it to a large dSLR. I think the field of view of the 24mm on APS-C is great, it's just like what full frame users experience with the 40 F2.8. But on APS-C, the F2.8 aperture in terms of field of view is not the same, so for a prime, while F2.8 is on the slower side, it's also limited in terms of depth of field control (on APS-C).

But this is why I ended up going with an EOS-M and 22mm F2 pancake. Small in all ways. Pancake. F2 for a superior prime that is pancake. Sharp as all get out. But this was my personal preference as a solution to small, while keeping the quality of a large sensor.

In the sense of using it over the 17-55 F2.8 zoom, which has superb image quality, the only advantage the prime has here is the size. But to me, since it's not like you're putting the whole thing in your pocket with it being SLR, the size is negligible. So it's likely better to have the range of 17-55, having F2.8 the whole way, seems better to me. And I'm a prime guy.

Very best,

You could look for the old 35 f2, they can be had for around $200

I really like the portability of the pancake lenses, and will bring the 40mm pancake along with me wherever we travel, as it takes up almost zero space in the camera bag. It makes for a nice, light weight walk around solution on my 5D3, and the lens is very low cost considering the quality. Like MalVeauX, I also have the EOS M + 22mm f/2 pancake for a truly pocketable large sensor solution, but I still would not get rid of the 40mm pancake.

If I used my 7D for anything more than wildlife with a telephoto lens, I would pick up the EFS 24mm pancake.

All good comments above and it really depends your intended use. I have both lenses you mention and the zoom is quite heavy and big. I carry the 100D with both the 24mm and 40mm pancakes when hill-walking in Scotland. The camera with one lens mounted and second lens, p/l filter and cleaning cloth in a small camera bag only weighs 1kg. The 100D with 17-55mm weighs 1.6 kg (in a bigger camera bag). Every gram counts for me and the smaller bag makes a huge difference when scrambling too. So, I would say, it depends.

I think the 24 and the 40 are great for their size and their image quality is good too. the 17-55 2.8 is a huge lens and if you are wanting to travel light the two of them take up far less space than the 17-55. I don't get the logic of if you want something small go get the EOS-M because you then need to get different lenses and the body might not be capable for what you need it to do. I know the EOS-M is not going to be as good as my 70D in a number of areas so I'll stick with getting different pancakes as they come out with them for when I need a smaller camera.

jhartley wrote in post #17374869
I think the 24 and the 40 are great for their size and their image quality is good too. the 17-55 2.8 is a huge lens and if you are wanting to travel light the two of them take up far less space than the 17-55. I don't get the logic of if you want something small go get the EOS-M because you then need to get different lenses and the body might not be capable for what you need it to do. I know the EOS-M is not going to be as good as my 70D in a number of areas so I'll stick with getting different pancakes as they come out with them for when I need a smaller camera.

the IQ of the eos M and 70D are pretty much the same...where the 70D excels and the M is left behind is the AF...but if you're going for something light and small, the EOS-M costs about as much as a lens and it's tiny...it's a good small package for when you want to go light, the 22mm is a great lens, and is a stop faster than the 24mm pancake...and as far as lenses for the M you really only need the 22mm if all you want is something lightweight, walk around but with good IQ