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

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

But there are a few things a 1D series body or 1Ds/5D bodies can do that have advantages.

So it's all a game in what you need most.

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

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

syntrix wrote in post #2243188
+1

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

grego wrote in post #2244612
But there are a few things a 1D series body or 1Ds/5D bodies can do that have advantages.

So it's all a game in what you need most.

Pretty much my thinking. I would run two systems if I could afford it. If you have not moved to FF, this is one COMPELLING reason to defer it. As for myself.. TOO LATE Canon!! Should have had one with my name on it the day it was announced.

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

i totally respect your advice because i love your images and i think they are one of the best around here...

at first i was set on this lens..

but now i am thinking the 24-70 because of the extra reach on the further end and i think just maybe one day i might get a full frame.. i dont know.. the L is more expensive anyway and if i do change my mind i probably can sell it and buy the 17-55...

ive never had a camera with IS so maybe if i havent lived without it i wont know any better...

this lens i want to purchase is for general walk around and to use at weddings when i am comissioned.. plz note im only second photographer and do plan 2 get bigger and better but im not jumping the gun yet.. talking my time.

I'm in exactly the same dilema. It's VERY frustrating. I sway from one lens to the other on an hourly basis and I'm still not decided.

Lightstream wrote in post #2246531
Pretty much my thinking. I would run two systems if I could afford it. If you have not moved to FF, this is one COMPELLING reason to defer it. As for myself.. TOO LATE Canon!! Should have had one with my name on it the day it was announced.

Yeah, i agree. I have my 30D, and would love to put something like that on my body. Or even some other lens that aren't even EF-S like Sigma's 30 1.4. But its just hard to make a purchase that only works on one body. Not with my college budget.

Still, i'd have to take my 1DMKII + 24-70 or 16-35 over the 17-55 IS, for the AF accuracy and the choice of AF points. But there's a compromise to everything.

verty wrote in post #2246907
i totally respect your advice because i love your images and i think they are one of the best around here...

at first i was set on this lens..

but now i am thinking the 24-70 because of the extra reach on the further end and i think just maybe one day i might get a full frame.. i dont know.. the L is more expensive anyway and if i do change my mind i probably can sell it and buy the 17-55...

ive never had a camera with IS so maybe if i havent lived without it i wont know any better...

this lens i want to purchase is for general walk around and to use at weddings when i am comissioned.. plz note im only second photographer and do plan 2 get bigger and better but im not jumping the gun yet.. talking my time.

Do what covers you most. 17-55 is good if you can only roll with one body. And as a second photographer, you have more flexibility like that. Keep in mind, you need to be able to shoot wide.

You need wide and long. In between isn't as important. I mean idealy you want all, but if you want to plan, you want wide and long. Not super wide, but decent wide like 16-17mm on 1.6 crop camera.

And then something like the 70-200 2.8(Sigma or Canon - IS or non IS), on the second body eventually.

grego wrote in post #2250242
You need wide and long. In between isn't as important. I mean idealy you want all, but if you want to plan, you want wide and long. Not super wide, but decent wide like 16-17mm on 1.6 crop camera.

Good advice... I was actually thinking after I read you comment, how I shoot. And you're right. I seldom use the range between 50 and 70, but I often use my wide angle in all ranges (old 20-35/2.8L) and on my Tamron I often use the 70-75 mm range. As I'm upgrading my lenses to some new, the 17-55 with IS will be great, then the 70-200/2.8L IS to replace my old non-IS 80-200/2.8L. The IS on both of them should make my wedding photography a breeze even indoors, in the winter.

If I upgrade to FF I can probably get a good second hand price on the 17-55 as Canon is a good brand and shouldn't drop in value as fast as lets say my Tamron. And as Canon doesn't seem to have any plans on ditching the 1.6x crop, it's a safe bet and should be easy to sell in the future.

CyberPet wrote in post #2250323
Good advice... I was actually thinking after I read you comment, how I shoot. And you're right. I seldom use the range between 50 and 70, but I often use my wide angle in all ranges (old 20-35/2.8L) and on my Tamron I often use the 70-75 mm range. As I'm upgrading my lenses to some new, the 17-55 with IS will be great, then the 70-200/2.8L IS to replace my old non-IS 80-200/2.8L. The IS on both of them should make my wedding photography a breeze even indoors, in the winter.

If I upgrade to FF I can probably get a good second hand price on the 17-55 as Canon is a good brand and shouldn't drop in value as fast as lets say my Tamron. And as Canon doesn't seem to have any plans on ditching the 1.6x crop, it's a safe bet and should be easy to sell in the future.

If you did upgrade to full frame, your 20-35 actually would be sufficient. I mean 20mm on full frame, is damn wide. Although the 24-70 would be a nice longer alternative, but the 20-35 would cover a nice range over there. Of course you'd still want a second body.

grego, yeah I don't plan on selling the 20-35 anyday soon, it's way too good of a lens. But I'll probably sell the magic drainpipe.

I have two bodies right now, and not sure if I will be able to afford two FF bodies once I do take the leap, so I think I personally wouldn't do anything wrong by getting the EF-S lens right now. After all it has to do with both economy and smarts (ok, I'm not *that* smart but I'm realistic).

is the 24-70mm L no good on a 350d?

verty wrote in post #2251199
is the 24-70mm L no good on a 350d?

Verty,

It is a great lens on the 350D, but the 17-55MM EF-S IS is equal in IQ, is equal in fstop, and has IS. Over the 17-55 you lose 17-23MM on the wide end and gain 56-70MM on the long end. IQ is not the deciding factor; focal range and IS are the decision points IMHO.

It seems to me that you've already made your decision to get the 24-70.

24-70's fine on an APS-C. Since you have, and use, the 10-20 Sigma, the 17-55 will get you 4 mm (21-24 mm) that the 24-70 won't. The 24-70 will leave a little gap in your coverage, but go 15 mm longer than the 17-55. I'd go with the 24-70 given what you have.

verty wrote in post #2251199
is the 24-70mm L no good on a 350d?

I honestly don't know. But from reports I'm getting from other wedding photographers about using it on 1.6x bodies, I'm not sure. I'll be testing a friends lens this week on my own body to see what it does, and then when I go into a camera store, I'll test the lens I'll buy as well to see if I get a similar result.

But... and this is also worrysome, those people reporting problems with the 24-70 also say that it's getting worse by time. A lens that's sharp in the beginning is getting worse after a few months or a year. That's something I can't risk.

In the days of film SLRs, 35-110 was a very popular range to have as a general walk around lens, but in covering weddings 28-35 is more important to have, to be able to shoot small groups from restricted distances (where we don't have the luxury of backing up to get the group). So having 24-70 on an APS-C dSLR makes a lot of sense as a general walkabout, but makes less sense in the context of wedding coverage...17-55 is fantastic range for APS-C wedding coverage.

???
???
???