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

Wilt wrote in post #2241313
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?

i will shoot pics with the L and bow to it every night!
BWHAHAHAHAHHA
god its just so hard...
its getting annoying now..
i think i just like that nice lil red stripe around the lens
hahaha just kidding

L is just a trade name used for marketing. I think Canon could put an L and an EF mount on a Coke bottle and some people would buy it because the marketing has been so successful.

It is what the lens will actually do that is really important.

There are not many lenses around that are sharper than the 100 f/2.8 macro lens, but it does not have an L designation.

mmm thats another lens in the I WANNA BUY pipeline..
the 100 f/2.8 macro..

mmmm
i also have a spare coke bottle laying around.. i might try and mount that to my 350d
bwhahahaha

verty, just put the L designation aside because BOTH lenses are hot performers. Now, having neutralized THAT debate with yourself, merely ask which lens has a focal length range that is MORE USEFUL for the camera body that you own NOW. If it is still a total tie, ask yourself if you will be playing the part of tourist on vacation, and which one you want to spend wandering around streets on foot all day...the 1.5 lb. lens or the 2 lb. lens. If you prefer saving 0.5 lbs. on your shoulder all day, pick the 17-55. If you never will travel as a tourist with the lens, and would always be carrying the lens as a paid beast of burden (a pro) then it is a total tie once more. Then ask yourself if IS would help to to take photos in low light; if so, the 17-55 is the lens of choice. Finally, if it is a tie, then bow to the L god and accept the fact that all those around you who own Canon cameras will bow as well (or think you are spending money too lavishly on a hobby)

i must be getting annoying now..

i think i like the overall zoom range on the 24-70mm L better than the 17-55 even tho i have heard great things about this lens.. but i only have the 10-20mm and the 50mm f/1.8 (i also have the kit lens that i never use) so i think the 24-70mm would make more of a impact in my collection and give me more reach than the 17-55mm...

Wilt wrote in post #2241993
verty, just put the L designation aside because BOTH lenses are hot performers. Now, having neutralized THAT debate with yourself, merely ask which lens has a focal length range that is MORE USEFUL for the camera body that you own NOW. If it is still a total tie, ask yourself if you will be playing the part of tourist on vacation, and which one you want to spend wandering around streets on foot all day...the 1.5 lb. lens or the 2 lb. lens. If you prefer saving 0.5 lbs. on your shoulder all day, pick the 17-55. If you never will travel as a tourist with the lens, and would always be carrying the lens as a paid beast of burden (a pro) then it is a total tie once more. Then ask yourself if IS would help to to take photos in low light; if so, the 17-55 is the lens of choice. Finally, if it is a tie, then bow to the L god and accept the fact that all those around you who own Canon cameras will bow as well (or think you are spending money too lavishly on a hobby)

I like the way you put it

If I was still on APS-C and not enjoying the other stuff, f/2.8 and IS would win hands down walk away. Probably even on a paid shoot, because it'd increase my chances of getting something good.

L not for the sake of the red ring, but for what it offers you.....

verty wrote in post #2242061
i must be getting annoying now..

i think i like the overall zoom range on the 24-70mm L better than the 17-55 even tho i have heard great things about this lens.. but i only have the 10-20mm and the 50mm f/1.8 (i also have the kit lens that i never use) so i think the 24-70mm would make more of a impact in my collection and give me more reach than the 17-55mm...

That's your reason right there. If you never use the 18-55 focal lengths, a 17-55 may not be very helpful either. On the other hand if you want something longer, then the 24-70 is the way to go. Or 70-200 f/4L - white is pretty too.

Lightstream wrote in post #2242065
That's your reason right there. If you never use the 18-55 focal lengths, a 17-55 may not be very helpful either. On the other hand if you want something longer, then the 24-70 is the way to go. Or 70-200 f/4L - white is pretty too.

the reason why i dont use the Kit lens is because i simply do not like the quality of the cheap build.. i know some people like it but im not happy with my copy... the focal range is great and a good walk around lens but the quality makes me not wanna use it..

if i choose the 17-55 or the 24-70 i know it will be my every day lens and the lens i use if i get commissioned

They're both terrific lenses, the only way to pick which one you want is which focal length you need, 17-55mm or 24-70mm...there's your decision.

h0rde wrote in post #2242199
They're both terrific lenses, the only way to pick which one you want is which focal length you need, 17-55mm or 24-70mm...there's your decision.

Agreed. That's what it boils down to.

I have had both lenses. I use the 17-55 and do not now own a 24-70. The 24-70 is just too long at the wide end. The 17 does quite nicely. 70 mm is not that much more than 55 at the other end. In my case the 17-55 has better IQ at f2.8 than my 24-70 had. I am a very satisfied owner of the 17-55 f2.8 efs lens. I am surprized at how much it is on my camera ! I have several other options. It is a nice lens.

Your biggest questions are:

How wide do you want to be? There's a big diff between 17 and 24 mm.
Do you like selling gear? If you upgrade to a body that doesn't take EF-S, you would likely have to sell, so if you don't like selling, don't buy(if you plan to upgrade to non EF-S bodies).

grego wrote in post #2242628
Your biggest questions are:

How wide do you want to be? There's a big diff between 17 and 24 mm.
Do you like selling gear? If you upgrade to a body that doesn't take EF-S, you would likely have to sell, so if you don't like selling, don't buy(if you plan to upgrade to non EF-S bodies).

Let me say again...the 17-55MM EF-S IS is justification enough to keep a 1.6 crop body forever...IMHO

Get the 17-55, the IS is reason enough to get it. I can pull off shots that would be impossible with a 24-70 PERIOD

Toogy wrote in post #2243014
Get the 17-55, the IS is reason enough to get it. I can pull off shots that would be impossible with a 24-70 PERIOD

Yep

JimAskew wrote in post #2242932
Let me say again...the 17-55MM EF-S IS is justification enough to keep a 1.6 crop body forever...IMHO

+1

Or justification to not spend the money on a new FF body