Another 17-55 2.8 IS vs. ???

After much rebate, I went ahead and purchased this lens everyone seems to rave about... received it yesterday but did not get a good chance to test it against my 35L. Like many have pointed out, yes! it should have been better built for its rather high price. Now as most of us all know, I have about 7 days to try this baby out... Is it really that good? I have heard about its sharpness but about color and saturation compared to the legendary 24-70L. The pictures I have taken last night do not seem to be in par with my 35L... Please give comfort here... or let me free and get the 24-70L... ARHHHHHHHHHH

The 35L is tough to beat, but I would take the 17-55 over the 24-70 any day of the week.

It's not fair to expect the 17-55 to be on par with the 35/1.4. Come on dude. This is also a prime vs. zoom comparison. What do you expect here?

The 17-55 isn't even gonna perform as well as the 24-70, wherever Image Stabilization is not considered. Just check out the lens element construction and compare UD and aspherical components. Are they the same? No way. Just check out the Canon Camera museum info: http://www.canon.com …m/camera/lens/f​_lens.html

"...for it's rather hight price" ? Well the 17-55 isn't really worth that much in the long run. It's still got a 'shiny and new' price premium on it. Wait until full-frame DSLRs become more common and you'll begin to see the real, longer-term value of this lens. Canon have done a great job positioning it (features) marketing it (well, you know...)

salut, a tip for you. Change your thinking to "which focal length range best suits my needs and preferred style of photography" or "which focal length range (or max aperture) is missing from my arsenal", rather than what appears to be your current "which lens do I want to buy because it is 'better'."

The reason I say that...17-55 is wide-to-short-tele on an APS-C format camera, whereas 24-70 is wide normal- to-medium tele on the same camera. So it is a bit like asking "I am having a hard time choosing between a compact pickup or a compact sedan" in thinking "I wanna buy some new wheels, what should I get?", in that they are for two different purposes and the best choice is based upon what you want to accomplish with the purchase! With that change in focus, your selection will become clearer and less shot in the dark.

Wayne MG wrote in post #2272121
The 17-55 isn't even gonna perform as well as the 24-70

This would be a huge minority report, even though I haven't heard anyone say this who has or who has used both.

I agree with the post above but I was thinking that perhaps I could instead get the legendary L glass and grab the 10-22 later for my wide needs. While it is not fair to compare the 17-55 to the 35L, I would like my quality pictures to come as least close to that lens...... boy! the 35L is that good... So the question would be is the 24-70L closer to the 35L as far as image quality? contrast, saturation, color... I have read many giving up on the L glass after receiving the 17-55... I am just clueless. i understand the 17-55 is a better lens for a walkaround for crop body, I seek quality. HELP....

if you want your images to come clost to the 35L. just use the 35L. it's unfair to compare a non L zoom lens to an L prime lens. it's like comparing a somewhat sporty minivan to an exotic Ferrari. opposite ends of the spectrum.

anyways, i own the 17-55 and i can say it's a magnificent lens. i have used the 24-70 for a few events and I can say that is great glass as well. i like the little bit of added reach, but don't like how i give up the wide end. the IS works great and definitely helps. i think it works even better when you are already a steady shooter. the IS helps you that much more in low light.

LightRules wrote in post #2272420
This would be a huge minority report, even though I haven't heard anyone say this who has or who has used both.

OK, but even before anyone says anything to you, just compare for yourself the optical construction of both in terms of UD and aspherical lens elements and then decide which one is going to be better at resolving power and at controlling aberrations.

Wayne MG wrote in post #2272613
OK, but even before anyone says anything to you, just compare for yourself the optical construction of both in terms of UD and aspherical lens elements and then decide which one is going to be better at resolving power and at controlling aberrations.

I don't need to compare diagrams or theoretical MTFs. I've shot with four 24-70L's and two 17-55's and I know how they perform first hand.

Well, I've owned both the 24-70 and 17-55. *MY* 24-70L copy had the slight edge in saturation, and was ahead in flare resistance. The 17-55 beat it in everything else I compared the two in. Non scientific tests.... just taking thousands and thousands of photos with each lens.

Also, comparing the 35L to the 17-55 is odd. Why? Both have different uses and would be a great pair.... together.

Wayne, per tests in photozone.de (MTF values on the 24-70 are not as high) and per the testimony of a number of users who have tried both the 17-55 and the 24-70, the 17-55 is the image quality winner. There is mounting evidence consistent with those observations.

Well then LightRules, PictureCrazy, and Wilt:

You've all taught me something new tonight about the quality of the 17-55. I hope that sample variations don't slant any comparisions between the two, since I know that soft/back/front-focusing copies of the 24-70 are out there. (I got lucky with a well-calibrated copy out-of-the box BTW).

But can I at least still knock the 17-55 for not being as wide as the 24-70 in effective focal length? On a 30D, for example, the 17-55 corresponds to 27-88mm on full frame. And those extra 3 millimeters on the wide end might be noticeable. Cheers.

Wayne MG wrote in post #2273230
But can I at least still knock the 17-55 for not being as wide as the 24-70 in effective focal length? On a 30D, for example, the 17-55 corresponds to 27-88mm on full frame. And those extra 3 millimeters on the wide end might be noticeable. Cheers.

Well, yes you could. But not that many people own a 5D with 24-70L and also a 30D with 17-55, so the knock is somewhat hollow! And by your own comparison, the 24-70 is not as long as the 17-55 (27-88mm equivalent).

So for weddings, where 24mm on 35mm SLR is too wide from its tendency toward inducing perspective distortion in shots, exaggerating noses and bottoms, the wide end is undesireable anyway. OTOH it is often useful to have just a bit more reach!

Point, 17-55. Game, set, match!

OK, but I was also thinking about the standard 24mm perspective for landscape photography. I totally agree that for portraits this particular bend would be less than flattering on facial features.

I might also add that the match between the 17-55 and the 24-70 is far from over for at least one more reason - weather sealing!

Wayne MG wrote in post #2273556
I might also add that the match between the 17-55 and the 24-70 is far from over for at least one more reason - weather sealing!

But it also appears that the 17-55 is a much more effective dust vacuum!