17-55 F2.8 IS or 24-70 F2.8 L ?? decisions

Love my 17-55. And I love it the more I use it.
No harm if I go full frame, I'll just sell it.

ScottE wrote in post #2227379
Not all 1.6 crop bodies are EF-S compatible. The D30, D60 and 10D cameras are all 1.6 crop and will not accept EF-S lenses.

are the 20D and the 30D full frames?

verty wrote in post #2231642
are the 20D and the 30D full frames?

No. 1.6x crop.

verty wrote in post #2231642
are the 20D and the 30D full frames?

Only two digitals are full frame. The 1Ds series(Mark I and MarkII) and the 5D. What i listed previously covers everything, i think.

ahhh im confused all over again...
besides the IS on the 17-55 wouldnt the overrall quality of the 28-70mm L be better over the 17-55 IS USM??

Go to photozone.de and read the lens tests for yourself, and draw your own conclusion about the relative optical quality of the lenses you are considering.

The format you shoot and the FOV view that you need for that format ultimately defines what focal length range you need. Everything else is secondary to capturing the image you need to capture...it is irrelevant if the L lens outperforms at 50mm or not, for example, if you need a 17mm lens to capture the scene, isn't it? And if the FF camera remains $1000 more expensive than the current APS-C format camera, are you ever going to bite that bullet of spending money which you could spend better elsewhere?

Wilt wrote in post #2240815
Go to photozone.de and read the lens tests for yourself, and draw your own conclusion about the relative optical quality of the lenses you are considering.

The format you shoot and the FOV view that you need for that format ultimately defines what focal length range you need. Everything else is secondary to capturing the image you need to capture...it is irrelevant if the L lens outperforms at 50mm or not, for example, if you need a 17mm lens to capture the scene, isn't it? And if the FF camera remains $1000 more expensive than the current APS-C format camera, are you ever going to bite that bullet of spending money which you could spend better elsewhere?

sorry i didnt understand what you ment by the last bit? about the more expensive bit

verty wrote in post #2240835
sorry i didnt understand what you ment by the last bit? about the more expensive bit

I was referring to the 17-55 vs. 24-70 conundrum that people put themselves in, "I don't wanta buy an EFS lens now because I wannabuy a FF camera eventually". FF costs $1000+ incremental more than APS-C, and will likely always cost more money (even if FF absolute price has dropped, it will always be more expensive than the smaller format) So if you save $1000 then (vs. saving $1000 now) isn't economics going to force your buying in a similar direction then, too?

Wilt wrote in post #2240848
I was referring to the 17-55 vs. 24-70 conundrum that people put themselves in, "I don't wanta buy an EFS lens now because I wannabuy a FF camera eventually". FF costs $1000+ incremental more than APS-C, and will likely always cost more money (even if FF absolute price has dropped, it will always be more expensive than the smaller format) So if you save $1000 then (vs. saving $1000 now) isn't economics going to force your buying in a similar direction then, too?

i c..
get ya
dont you think in the future tho as technology gets better & cheaper standard dslrs like 400d ect will become full frame??

verty wrote in post #2240857
i c..
get ya
dont you think in the future tho as technology gets better & cheaper standard dslrs like 400d ect will become full frame??

If APS-C format provides consumers with 'plenty fine' image quality now, it will in the future too. (False logic that better image quality eventually makes the smaller format disappear...medium format cameras never made 35mm film cameras disappear!)

Smaller and light is always going to be 'less expensive to manufacture' and that will always make it 'less expensive to buy'. Smaller sensor will always be less expensive than larger sensor merely because smaller sensor is less expensive to build; smaller format film camera was always less expensive than larger format film camera. That was my point about FF relative cost...today it is $800 XTi or $1500 30D vs. $2800 5D; tomorrow it will probably be $300 9XT or $800 90D vs. $1800 9D...but the pricing differential will always exist to some degree. Cheaper yes, but still more expensive to buy!

verty wrote in post #2240857
i c..
get ya
dont you think in the future tho as technology gets better & cheaper standard dslrs like 400d ect will become full frame??

Will one ounce of gold always be more expensive than a half ounce of gold? But what if mining technology improves and it costs less to mine gold?

A FF sensor is made from the same thing an APS-C sensor is made from. One is larger than the other. My prediction is that the larger one will always cost more than the smaller one.

A bigger sailboat often costs about the same as a smaller sailboat... On a cost per pound basis, though not on absolute price. A luxury sailboat alway costs more than a plainer sailboat, on a cost per pound basis.

A bigger camera often costs about the same as a smaller camera...On a cost per pound basis, though not on absolute price. A luxury camera alway costs more than a plainer camera, on a cost per pound basis.

If you compare image quality the 17-55 is at least as good as the 24-70.

If you compare construction quality, the 17-55 barrel is made of polycarbonate while the 24-70 is made with an aluminum casting. Many people claim that the aluminum casting is better, but that is debatable. The aero-space industry uses polycarbonate parts for many structural members because it can be lighter than metal and stronger in some applications. In any case, I would not willingly subject either lens to a test that was shown to have destroyed the other.

god i still dont know what to do...
i just presume because the 24-70 L is a L lens its just automatically better than the 17-55 IS USM ARRRRRG!
its too hard.

verty wrote in post #2241308
i just presume because the 24-70 L is a L lens its just automatically better than the 17-55 IS USM ARRRRRG!
its too hard.

Yes, fanatic following has bestowed the L with godlike optical capabilities and no one wants to think the god is flawed or lesser than ordinary folk! Will you shoot photos with the lens, or merely watch the worshippers bow to it?