24-70 f2.8 L or 17-55 f2.8 IS

Which is the sharpest and which would you buy? If you had the choice and why?

I am on the fence between the 2.. not sure which would be best, I have a 20D and getting a 30D also...

if you've got an APS-C body, get the 17-55. It's wider, just as fast, produces images just as good, and has IS. Only full-framers *** should buy the 24-70 over the 17-55.

cbr929rrerion wrote in post #2521648
Which is the sharpest and which would you buy? If you had the choice and why?

I am on the fence between the 2.. not sure which would be best, I have a 20D and getting a 30D also...

If I was committed to the 1.6x crop body, then I would pick the 17-55IS.

Why? Simple. The 3-stop IS. The 15mm of FL isn't really too big of a deal, especially if you get a 70-200 or 70-300.

Then it really comes down to build quality. The 24-70 is an "L" afterall, so it is built better than the 17-55. That said, I don't think the 17-55 is that flimsy.

See my comments in the thread "30D->5D and lens choices??? " which can be found in the EOS forums.

So can you imagine constant f/2.8, but on top of that 3-stop IS? Of course nothing exists in the market that has those features.

If you think you need them, it's absolutely worth it. You can find the lens for under $1000 now, so it's a good deal.

I voted for 17-55 even tho I have a 24-70.

I'm running with a 24-70 because it's usually wide enough (for me) and I plan to go full-frame one day.

But if you're committed to APS-C, get a 17-55. Cheaper and just as good optically, plus it has IS.

On a crop camera, the 24-70 becomes the equivalent of 38-112. That's a zoom range that one typically finds on cheap p&s zooms. If you've ever handled one, you'd know just how useless a range that is.

If you're committed to crop sensor cameras, a 24-70 shouldn't even be a part of the equation.

Plan is for a 1D M2N in about 2-3 months...

This would seem to be kinda critical information not included in the original question. Unless you are major rich or a pro who can afford to have lenses that only fit some of your many cameras then don't buy the EF-S

I don't understand why anybody who is buying a FF camera essentially immediately would even ask this question, but I don't personally own several expensive bodies and I don't take pictures for a living.

cbr929rrerion wrote in post #2521766
Plan is for a 1D M2N in about 2-3 months...

defintely get the 17-55 then so you'll at least get a couple months experience with a lens you'll probably never use again !

ed rader

point taken...

I was going to get the 24-70 L then thought about the 17-55, as I said my plan is to go to the 1D in 2-3 months, if things dont work out finacially then it will be by later in the year..

So I think I will stick with my original plan and get the 24-70 L

If you want the focal range of the 17-55... I would go for the 17-40 L f/4.0...I've been eyeing that one for a long time. It'll work for any camera..including the 1d's. It's cheaper, too... less than $700 USD.

h0rde wrote in post #2521696
if you've got an APS-C body, get the 17-55. It's wider, just as fast, produces images just as good, and has IS. Only full-framers or brainless L snobs should buy the 24-70 over the 17-55.

I disagree - If you ever plan on going FF, and have other good lenses in the wide end - the 24-70 would be a good choice.

I have them both, and both have there place. Eventually I'll have a FF dslr. I won't be looking for another lens then. Currently all lens my canon lenses fit the 30D, only the 17-55 IS won't fit my 10D or EOS-3.

If it's a choice between the two, only you can decide which focal range is better suited to what you normally shoot. If you 50mm is always too short, buying the 17-55 IS would not seem to be in the cards.

If you can't seem to ever get enough into your images. Then go for the 17-55.

I have both also focal lengths. I love both lenses (even though my 17-50 is the Tamron)and would not want be without either of them. When I first got my 24-70, I didn't think you could beat it. It is my main portrait and Wedding lens. One thing that bothers me with it now though is that my group shots or wide angle shots are sometimes soft. Outside especially. I want to send it in, but being out of warranty there is a hefty little cost to having them fix it.

So that where my 17-50 comes in. The Tamron is suprisingly Sharp. So for my groups and wide angle, I pull out this lens for sharp sharp images. Plus sometimes, you've just got to have the extra width for those certain situations and the 17 mm does the trick. So if you want to put down the big bucks for the 24-70 2.8, you won't regret it. Then grab the Tamron 17-50 2.8 for around $400 to get you buy until you can swing the Canon. I'm fine with the Tamron though without any desire to upgrade.

cbr929rrerion wrote in post #2521766
Plan is for a 1D M2N in about 2-3 months...

In this case, the 24-70.

h0rde wrote in post #2521696
Only full-framers *** should buy the 24-70 over the 17-55.

FFers cannot buy the 17-55.