Confirm or deny my thinking [ 24-70 L Content ] Bit of a Long Read...

My advice just comes from my own experience - having a 24-70 on a crop body was okay, but I always wanted to go wider - which you can do w/ your 17-40, but then you're losing a stop and spending time swapping. (not to mention hauling add'l gear to a gig) If money were no object, I imagine you might go FF right away. A new 5D seem due for fall, but the current version is still a wonderful thing. Plus, I wasn't super impressed with the 17-55, and the IS wasn't a big deal to me. It was sharp, but the images always looked flat & warm to me, compared to the 70-200.

Now that I'm using a 35 and an 85, I've gotten to a point where I don't really use the 24-70 unless I really, really need 24mm. I'll break out the 70-200 for the ceremony, but otherwise it's a prime on each shoulder.

Thanks Phil, yes money is a concern - we're moving very soon and I have my own wedding coming up, so I have to take my business upgrades one at a time. I'm at the point now where I'm trying to decide on buying the 17-55 (which is the best option for crop, but I probably wouldn't be 100% satisfied and it'd be a temporary lens) or buying the 24-70 (probably a keeper) and dealing with switching for wider in the meantime.

Since you're keeping the 17-40, I'd say stick with the 24-70L. It will serve you well now, and into the future.

I ran across an interesting program called ImageReporter than analyzes your lightroom catalog and spits out reports of focal lengths and other useful data. So I'd like to revive this thread up fresh with some data about my shooting (right now there is a mix of wedding, landscape, and other varied shooting in there).

These are broken down by Number of images / percentage of total shots / focal length
1356 Total Images and the focal lengths shot (rounded to the nearest 10mm)
346 25% 20mm
83 6% 30mm
107 7% 40mm
293 21% 50mm
83 6% 70mm
14 1% 80mm
12 0% 90mm
79 5% 100mm
13 0% 110mm
5 0% 120mm
18 1% 130mm
9 0% 140mm
13 0% 150mm
10 0% 160mm
3 0% 170mm
2 0% 180mm
3 0% 190mm
263 19% 200mm

And here's a sampling of the shots done with my current workhorse, the Tamron 17-50 (rounded to the nearest 10mm)
699 17.0-50.0 mm
257 36% 20mm
69 9% 30mm
80 11% 40mm
293 41% 50mm

It seems the bulk of my shooting is towards the extremes on this lens, 77% of my shots were either 20mm and wider of 45mm and longer, with 23% spread across the rest of the range.

What do you guys make of these unscientific stats? Starting to sway me towards the 17-55 even though I don't want to!

I ran the same thing against my beloved 17-40 for comparison...
111 17.0-40.0 mm
84 75% 20mm
13 11% 30mm
14 12% 40mm

Looks like I basically use it as if I'm using the long end of an ultrawide! Surprising!

Dorman wrote in post #4801563
My mind is pretty made up, once I sell a couple of other lenses I'm 95% sure I'll be ordering the 24-70L. Thanks so much for all the input guys & gals, and keep it coming until I've ordered!

Just remember the 24-70L is like walking around all day everyday with your 70-200mm. The 17-55mm EFS though a plastic fantastic non-L is light as a peanuts in comparison. Not bad for a lens of it's optical performance.

1.4 lbs vs. 2.1 lbs. The weight is not a factor or concern for me at all.

Brad, if your 17-50 is your "workhorse", I assume that when you're walking around with one body and one lens, then that's the one lens. If that is the case, it's no surprise that the bulk of your shots would be in that FL range.

Also, maybe the reason that you're using the extremes of the FL range is because at times it's not quite wide enough or not quite long enough, so you go as wide or as long as you can with the lens you have.

I agree runninman..

brad, why don't you 'set' your lens to 24mm (imagine) and shoot around for a day or week...do you like it?

Well I just got back from doing a studio shoot. I did have the brief opportunity to mount a 17-55 F/2.8 IS and shoot a few frames. My initial observations were that the build quality was a bit better than I imagined (I had kit lens quality in my head), but it still felt like a far cry from $1000 lens. I disliked the zoom/focus rings, the zooming action was not smooth and the focus ring is tiny and in an awkward place. The focusing was fast, silent, and seemed accurate and the lens is indeed pretty sharp with decent color (not quite L quality). The lens didn't wow me any more than my Tamron 17-50 in terms of sharpness/color/contra​st - where the 17-55 is noticeably better is in focus speed and accuracy. That being said, I didn't use the wide end at all, I spent most of the evening close to 50mm or above.

Runninmann - yes that's a very good point, a person can only use what they have, and with 17mm and 50mm being the extremes on this lens then that's obviously were I'd shoot alot. I think I'll run it again on different catalogs - to see what lengths I'm at for certain kinds of shooting rather than just a general overall conclusion.

you can even try to evaluate your exif stats. you already did, but I mean:

From all the pics you shot from 17-24 (for example) which lens did you use? would it have been possible to shoot less wide? Would 40mm have been sufficient in combination with the 24-70, so there is no need to switch lenses constantly?
I agree with runninman indeed, if 24mm is wide enough, it would be perfect. do you need something wider(17mm) maybe 40mm could already be sufficient...and that makes you able to use that lens for a little while, instead of switching.
Every option would have some trade-offs ofcourse...

IMO, I'd be very pleased with the 17-40/24-70 combination. besides, the gap from 40>55 isn't that huge, so the 17-40/17-55 would be a less interesting option. (in terms of focal lenghts; the f2.8/IS are an advantage ofcourse...another trade off...it never ends)

prinspaul wrote in post #4835418
IMO, I'd be very pleased with the 17-40/24-70 combination. besides, the gap from 40>55 isn't that huge, so the 17-40/17-55 would be a less interesting option. (in terms of focal lenghts; the f2.8/IS are an advantage ofcourse...another trade off...it never ends)

I'm not concerned over the 40-55mm gap, if I did pick up the 17-55 F/2.8 IS the 17-40 would stay, but probably not see any use. I just truly don't want to get rid of that lens as it's been very good to me the past few years - someday I'd like to use the 17-40 as an ultrawide when I make the leap to FF.

I just ran the same EXIF analyzer on the last wedding I shot last season. I wanted to look at just the wide-to-medium range, here's the wedding specific results...

132 22% 20mm
48 8% 30mm
69 11% 40mm
258 43% 50mm

So, 24mm and below comprised 22% of my shooting (no way to tell if it was the 17mm end, or closer to 24mm). I don't think for this style of shooting I feel the need to go wider than 17mm, however....45-50mm comprised a whopping 43% of my shooting! that tells me I probably wanted to go longer than 50mm quite often.

Interesting...

Dorman wrote in post #4835983
I just truly don't want to get rid of that lens as it's been very good to me the past few years

so... the 24-70 would be perfect. I see it like this:

17-40 / 17-55 >> you gain 15mm on the long end, you have F2.8/IS - it seems to be an advanced supstitute, but in your case it wouldn't be a substitute in the way of 'either - or' it's 'both,' that's just less interesting.
17-40 / 24-70 >> you have the extra reach, L type of lens and you are more able to use both lenses for different kind of situations, it's not a very bad trade off in my opinion.

The only thing you need to know is if it would have been possible (in your opinion) to shoot the 17-23mm pics in 24mm - if so, then the only thing that can hold you back is whether to have IS or not to have - and you still use the 17-40 ofcourse! (keep in mind that you won't miss the 40-55 gap)

5D users are very pleased with the 24-70 and some claim the IS isn't always necessary in this focal lenght. IS is more or less a welcome bonus, isn't it?

prinspaul wrote in post #4836785
The only thing you need to know is if it would have been possible (in your opinion) to shoot the 17-23mm pics in 24mm - if so, then the only thing that can hold you back is whether to have IS or not to have -

Therine lies the difficult question - I only see 24mm wide being a possible limitation with weddings/events where things happen very quickly. Generally I think 24mm is the widest one should shoot people, unless you're distorting them for dramatic effect. IS is not needed in this range, but I'd certainly take advantage of it if I had it.