would you trade your EF 24-70 f2.8 L with the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS?

I did and am glad I did so. IQ is equal or better and there are time in low light that I'm very glad to have IS.

Yeah, I PMed a few members here asking if I should sell my 20D when I get my 5D (hopefully soon). They all said to keep it. But I don't want to manage 4 cameras. It's just too much. So, if I have to choose, it's the 5D, EOS 3 for me and 10D for my son to use.

Nope - I don't have a camera that is EF-S compatible.

Let me chime in - NO WAY!

Mark

For a 1.6, yes. Sharper, wider, lighter, IS.

i have the 24-70L and the 17-40L .

the 24-70L is my walkaround because i need the 70mm for the type of shooting that i do.

so what you are really asking me is if i would trade the 17-40L -- my landscape lens -- for the 17-55 and the answer is no.

the 17-40 is a better landscape lens. plus it's an L lens and it costs much less than the 17-55.



ed rader

Yes! I have both and if I had to get rid of one it would be the 24-70. The bottom line is that I get better pictures from the 17-55.

No way.

From someone who has owned both lenses, yes, but the 17-55 only fits the AP-C camera's. If it fit full frame, no question

I just bought mine ... The 17-55mm IS that is.

ok, i think NO to 17-55 wins! i know that the 17-55 IS is a great piece of glass -- thats why i contemplated about trading and hence this thread. the thing is, i will be upgrading to the 1DMIIn sometime late next year and when i do, it will give my 24-70 a slightly wider reach. thanks for the posts and comments everyone!!! they are truly much appreciated!!

I have a 17-55 and would never trade it for a 24-70. The 17-55 is a more useful range for my applications.

If I had a 24-70, I would still need a wider angle, but would probably get it by pairing the 24-70 with a 10-22, not by trading it for a 17-55.

If I could only carry one lens and needed to cover wide angle to short telephoto I would consider trading the 24-70 for the 17-55 because I do not find 24 mm wide enough for too many circumstances.

This EF-S vs EF argument is irrelevant because most people are never going to need a full frame camera. What we need is better EF-S cameras.

ScottE wrote in post #2164941
What we need is better EF-S cameras.

Agreed. I'd personally love an EF-S 1D equivalent.

roeddel wrote in post #2164678
ok, i think NO to 17-55 wins! i know that the 17-55 IS is a great piece of glass -- thats why i contemplated about trading and hence this thread. the thing is, i will be upgrading to the 1DMIIn sometime late next year and when i do, it will give my 24-70 a slightly wider reach. thanks for the posts and comments everyone!!! they are truly much appreciated!!

Roeddel,

I have noted that many of your NO posts do not have a 17-55MM EF-S IS with which to make a comparsion. I have to wonder how much "Red Ring" bias is in some responses?

On the one hand, one can answer your question on the basis of focal length alone and make a selection, e.g., WA v. short tele. Those votes are valid.

IQ is a wash IMHO...I own both and both perform superbly.

So, if IQ is equal, and focal length not an issue, then the IS gives the advantage to the 17-55MM EF-S IS.

Do not be misled by the "Red Ring" bias of some...the intangible of "built like a brick" or the weather-proofing for a very, very small group that likes to go out into all kinds of weather to take a shot are not deal makers to 99% of the POTN members. Versitility and IQ are key...therefore advantage 17-55MM IF-S IS

How about this question: Would anyone give up his/her 17-55mm 2.8 IS for 24-75 2.8?

My answer: Heck No!!! I will not give up my 17-55 unless Canon comes up with 24-75 2.8 IS or 24-105 2.8 IS...then I will upgrade to FF