Which would you choose? 17-55 f/2.8 on a 40D vs. 24-70 f/2.8 on a 5D

I'm picking up photography as a new hobby and I've been borrowing my sister's 300D with a 50mm f/1.8. I want to now buy my own equipment and I'm trying to decide which route I should take. I want to avoid the whole crop vs. FF debate, so I'm moving on to the lens instead. The types of pictures I like to take are (in this order): indoor, outdoor, portraits, landscapes. I have a large extended family, so the indoor shots that I take need a fast lens. The 50mm on a crop, I find is a bit to close and I need a wider angle.

Does anyone have side by side comparisons of the 17-55 on a crop to a 24-70 on a FF? I did read the review on the 17-55 and it mentioned that it was sharper than the 24-70, but wanted more hands on comparison with the two. Putting the money factor aside (especially with the Canon rebates around the corner,) which would you recommend?

TIA for helping me spend my money.

A 5D will make a better job of photos thanks to it's higher resolution and better high ISO performance.

Leonard Wong wrote in post #4081181
I'm picking up photography as a new hobby and I've been borrowing my sister's 300D with a 50mm f/1.8. I want to now buy my own equipment and I'm trying to decide which route I should take. I want to avoid the whole crop vs. FF debate, so I'm moving on to the lens instead. The types of pictures I like to take are (in this order): indoor, outdoor, portraits, landscapes. I have a large extended family, so the indoor shots that I take need a fast lens. The 50mm on a crop, I find is a bit to close and I need a wider angle.

Does anyone have side by side comparisons of the 17-55 on a crop to a 24-70 on a FF? I did read the review on the 17-55 and it mentioned that it was sharper than the 24-70, but wanted more hands on comparison with the two. Putting the money factor aside (especially with the Canon rebates around the corner,) which would you recommend?

TIA for helping me spend my money.

i don't have a comparison but i've owned both lenses and both cameras. i don't think there is a wrong choice ... there are advantages and disadvantages each way ... but if you are after superior image quality the 5d + 24-70L is a better choice.

the 5d will give you cleaner prints indoors but the 17-55 IS will be more useful indoors because of the IS and is sharper wide open.

also, the 24mm FOV of the 24-70L + 5d is a big deal to me but the trade-off is on the longer end where the 17-55 will be better for portraits.

you'll also have much better DOF control with the 5d and brick and better bokeh as well as better performance at high ISOs

imo if you have to ask get the 40d and the 17-55.

ed rader

i would say 5d w/ 24-70 wins hands down.

No doubt that I would go for the 5D/L combo ... I have a 17-55 IS on a 30D and is a decent lens but plasticky and the L to me pops more. The 5D is arguably the best bang per buck body you can buy. Lovely image quality.

These two lenses are equivalent in focal ranges on the two bodies you mention. The 24-70 is expected to be a little sharper in the borders, while the 17-55 gives you IS instead. It's up to you to decide which feature is better for you.

While the selection between these two lenses is difficult as their performance is quite close, the two bodies are night and day compared. Of course your point is comparing these two lenses with appropriate bodies so you can utilize equivalent focal lengths, but the two bodies cannot be compared both in terms of price and performance.

The 5D compared to the 400D is almost 3~4 times the cost. I would argue that the 5D is a much better camera but much older and - basically - old fashioned compared to the newer 400D and 40D bodies.

If I was looking for the best value for money in wide-angle - low-light, I would opt for the 40D, saving a hefty amount to spend on one or two better lenses. I would choose the 5D if I knew I was going to shoot high ISO most of the time.

you're comparing a ~$3000 (5D + 24-70) and ~$2000 (40D + 17-55) combo

go for 5d if it's on your budget

One could make the argument that due to DOF and speed advantages of FF a better comparison is the 24-105 IS F4 on FF vs 17-55 2.8 IS on 40D. Both IS; similar effective aperture. In that case I don't think you can beat the range of the 24-105.

lungdoc wrote in post #4081348
One could make the argument that due to DOF and speed advantages of FF a better comparison is the 24-105 IS F4 on FF vs 17-55 2.8 IS on 40D. Both IS; similar effective aperture. In that case I don't think you can beat the range of the 24-105.

I am going to purchase the 5D this year....I still have to decide which lens to buy....there were quite a number of forum members who recommended the 24-105 so far...

ed rader wrote in post #4081270
imo if you have to ask get the 40d and the 17-55.

This is probably the best point. I am leaning more toward the 5D only because I don't want to have to rebuy equipment if I choose to upgrade at a later time.

eble wrote in post #4081318
you're comparing a ~$3000 (5D + 24-70) and ~$2000 (40D + 17-55) combo

go for 5d if it's on your budget

Yes. I was originally planning to go for the 40D, but the Canon rebates for Canada put the 5D comparable budget range. If the USA rebate is similar, that's the reason I'm even considering the 5D. If there was no rebate and the cost difference was $1000, I would've opted for the 40D.

lungdoc wrote in post #4081348
One could make the argument that due to DOF and speed advantages of FF a better comparison is the 24-105 IS F4 on FF vs 17-55 2.8 IS on 40D. Both IS; similar effective aperture. In that case I don't think you can beat the range of the 24-105.

ed rader wrote in post #4081270
also, the 24mm FOV of the 24-70L + 5d is a big deal to me but the trade-off is on the longer end where the 17-55 will be better for portraits.

Is the 24-105 a better choice? mentally, the 24-70 f/2.8 sounds better, but I am not sure if I should really be concerned.

Leonard Wong wrote in post #4081420
This is probably the best point. I am leaning more toward the 5D only because I don't want to have to rebuy equipment if I choose to upgrade at a later time.


Yes. I was originally planning to go for the 40D, but the Canon rebates for Canada put the 5D comparable budget range. If the USA rebate is similar, that's the reason I'm even considering the 5D. If there was no rebate and the cost difference was $1000, I would've opted for the 40D.



Is the 24-105 a better choice? mentally, the 24-70 f/2.8 sounds better, but I am not sure if I should really be concerned.

you're choosing the 5d because of superior IQ?

if so the 24-70L is a better choice. if it's convenience you're after and very good IQ i would get the 24-105L or the 40d and 17-55.

i've owned the 24-70L and 24-105L and the former gives you better DOF control, better FF performance @ 24mm, better bokeh and better overall IQ.

i'm not saying the 24-105L is a slouch and it can do things that the 24-70L can't, but if you are after the best IQ get the 24-70L, imo .

ed rader

eble wrote in post #4081318
you're comparing a ~$3000 (5D + 24-70) and ~$2000 (40D + 17-55) combo

go for 5d if it's on your budget

That could all change with upcoming rebates. The 5D is 2300 now at BH, and if you throw in a 600 dollar rebate, the price difference wont be so dramatic.

You have gotten some good pros and cons of the two bodies, from a technical perspective. Let me give you an insight from a different perspective...the financial one! Unlike film SLRs, with the dSLR you are effectively PREPAYING all of your costs of 'film and processing'. The 5D costs 2x the cost of the 40D. If you intended on keeping both bodies for 2-3 years (before the next generation of cameras render today's cameras 'less desireable'!), and then sell it, assuming that both bodies depreciate 20-25% in that period of time, the 5D depreciation is $200-250 greater than the 40D! If your expected photo volume is not expected to be great, that is more cost per shot to factor into the investment. If you are a professional and can amortize the greater cost, the 5D is a very fine camer; if you are an avid enthusiast, the 5d is a very fine camera; if you are a vacation/family snapshooter, the 40D might be the better camera to buy...very few people ever make larger than 8x10 or 13x19, and it really is at higher magnifications where more pixels becomes more apparent. While the 5D has lower noise than the 30D, with the advances in technology, you need to do your homework before deciding its 'advantage' in noise is worth the delta in cost. If you have lots of disposable income and want it anyway, break a leg!

tuan209 wrote in post #4081656
That could all change with upcoming rebates. The 5D is 2300 now at BH, and if you throw in a 600 dollar rebate, the price difference wont be so dramatic.

I think that is the topic that I'm really debating. If the costs come within $500, should I just pull the trigger now and get the 5D? or use the 40D until I come to a point where I need to upgrade and then buy the next generation 5D?

Leonard Wong wrote in post #4081905
I think that is the topic that I'm really debating. If the costs come within $500, should I just pull the trigger now and get the 5D? or use the 40D until I come to a point where I need to upgrade and then buy the next generation 5D?

if you already have the 40d i'd work with it and wait. the price of the 5d will only get lower and the replacement may be a worthwhile upgrade.

BTW, a few weeks ago the 40d was supposed to be the new IQ king....better than the 5d according to some idiot who used the 40d for a few minutes at a camera show that everyone wanted to believe.

what happened to THAT ?

ed rader