Out of the two.

Im trying to take this one step further. Starting to get more serious to this photography hobby. Ive been ask to shoot a winter formal party for a client and a wedding. I want a lens to accomplish these two task without a hassle. Ive been asking around and have been told to get the 17-55 f2.8 IS or the 24-70 f2.8L. Price wise, theyre around the same. So Im not worry about that. Also, Im still doing automotive photography, so I want a lens that I wont have to be switching out from time to time. What do you guys think? Let me know, thanks!

If you see a full frame body in your future, and 24 is wide enough for you now, go with the 24-70.

If you will be using croppers for the foreseeable future, or you need wider than 24, get the 17-55.

i would say go for the 17-55 f/2.8. it will be great fo indoor and outdoor... but you might need the extra focal lens on the 24-70

Given your sig, the 17-55 would be the clear choice. As you have a crop camera, the 24-70 would not be very wide. Also, you might want to consider a flash to go with it, especially as you are doing this for someone else. Either the 430 or 580 would be good, though the 430 is obviously cheaper. I did see a deal for the 17-55 for $832 the other day on Amazon, but don't know if that is still around.

xarqi wrote in post #4386007
If you see a full frame body in your future, and 24 is wide enough for you now, go with the 24-70.

If you will be using croppers for the foreseeable future, or you need wider than 24, get the 17-55.

Since you are shooting a 20D, get the 17-55. But as xarqi suggests, if you think you may move to FF, the 2470f2.8L is an AWSOME lens. But on a crop, it doesn't get wide enough for you to be shooting a winter formal. ... To crowded, tight quarters. ... You will appreciate the 17-55 on the crop body.

Hey kennys350D:
Take the Sig17-70 if you still have it, and see if you think it would work in the circumstances you need, but never going below 24, or above 55. The shots you want to take, but can't might help you decide which of the two to choose.

Well....I wont b upgrading to a FFbody anytime soon (I love my 20d). So, I think Ive read enough and would consider gettin the 1755. Thanks for responding guys!

xarqi wrote in post #4386076
Hey kennys350D:
Take the Sig17-70 if you still have it, and see if you think it would work in the circumstances you need, but never going below 24, or above 55. The shots you want to take, but can't might help you decide which of the two to choose.

Its kind of hard to say, Ive never shot above 55...granted, Ive only been shooting at 17 for the wide angle affect for your automotive portraits. For people, Ive bought out the nifty fifty. As my clients are expanding, I want a lens that I can "trust".

Automotive photography, nice

arizona has alot of exotic cars ferrari, lamborghini etc etc.. Vancouver has i guess alot but not as much as California

kennys350d wrote in post #4386080
Well....I wont b upgrading to a FFbody anytime soon (I love my 20d). So, I think Ive read enough and would consider gettin the 1755. Thanks for responding guys!

Here's another way to look at it. If you do get the 17-55, and really find you are missing the 55-70 range, it's no big deal. Just shoot at 55 anyway, and crop a bit in post. Somehow, it just doesn't work the other way around.

Well Xarqi, this is what I wanted to get by the end of April (which should be no problem). The 1755 & 70200 2.8. IMO thats a hell of a combo. I also was looking into the 85 1.8. But I cant have too much. For the time being, Im going to purchase the 1755 and wish for the best!

kennys350d wrote in post #4386124
Well Xarqi, this is what I wanted to get by the end of April (which should be no problem). The 1755 & 70200 2.8. IMO thats a hell of a combo. I also was looking into the 85 1.8. But I cant have too much. For the time being, Im going to purchase the 1755 and wish for the best!

Sounds nice. Thinking of the 85/1.8 for portraits? Sure it won't be too long on a cropper?

Even though you've already made up your mind, let me just add in another ticket for the 17-55. This lens is far more suitable for a crop camera.. the FL simply is more useful. Secondly, it has IS, which combined with the f/2.8 makes it a formidable low-light lens. It's been my primary lens for the past year and my main 'people' zoom lens. I'm sure it will serve your wedding aspirations well.

xarqi wrote in post #4386173
Sounds nice. Thinking of the 85/1.8 for portraits? Sure it won't be too long on a cropper?

What do you think? Havent tried out the lens yet.

It's a good portrait lens. Question is, do you need the FL?