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

ofcourse, but every FF user, with the 24-70, would like to take advantage of that!
but you mean that 24mm is the widest FL on a FF or Cropcam?
If you really think 24mm would be the widest one to shoot with; why do you have concerns for the 17-23 gap? The only thing you'll miss is IS, but you gain some extra mm on the long end.
It sure is a big trade off, but you don't want to get rid of your 17-40, so why the update to the 17-55 instead of the 24-70.

I think the best thing we can do is, to buy some extra cameras...

Dorman wrote in post #4825240
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!

That doesn't surprise me at all. When I rented the 17-55 my shots were either 17mm or 55mm with virtually none in between. I would shoot 17mm when shooting wide scenics and landscapes and 55mm when portraits and candids. They way I look at it is that I'm not going to go out and do all sorts of different kinds of shooting at once with one lens. That's why I got the 24-70L. I like it much better. But, as I said before, if I could have one and only one lens then it would probably be the 17-55IS. I'm just glad I'm not in that situation though.

ChucklesKY wrote in post #4837109
They way I look at it is that I'm not going to go out and do all sorts of different kinds of shooting at once with one lens.

I agree totally for the most part, in many cases 17-40/24-70 would work, but events & weddings there sometimes isn't alot of time to switch and you have no ideas the conditions and quarters you'll be shooting in.

I'm going to drive myself nuts with this one!

Again, I appreciate all your input (and everyone elses too!)

the 17-55 IS.. better low light lens

keep the 70-200 IS on the other body.

I see no problem

Alright folks, I'm sleeping on it overnight and ordering in the morning. I have one lens in my shopping cart - last chance to try and sway me one way or the other!

Dorman wrote in post #4859663
Alright folks, I'm sleeping on it overnight and ordering in the morning. I have one lens in my shopping cart - last chance to try and sway me one way or the other!

Get the 24-70L! I will be soooo disappointed if you don't. . .I may even cry.

THE BRICK RULES!!!!!!!!

Well all, it was a long hard decision over the past little while. I had a chance to use briefly use both lenses recently. I also had opportunities to purchase both items from reputable members of this forum: a mint used 24-70, and a BNIB 17-55. Both were decent savings over ordering from B&H, and both were substantial savings over Cdn retail prices. So what did I end up doing you might ask? *Drumroll* dddddddrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr​............

I pulled the trigger on the 17-55 F/2.8 IS! My inherent love of L lenses, IQ, build quality, and future full frame compatibility wasn't enough to overcome the simple fact that the range, speed, IS, and stunning IQ make it the best tool for the work that I'm currently doing. I just know that 24mm wide would be limiting, and really I don't want to be constantly switching to get the 17-24mm range. If all works out well the 17-40 will either be relegated to backup status, or will go to a new home to fund some other needed items (possibly a 10-22, or lighting). So thank you for your input everyone, it was indeed key to me making my decision.

Cheers.

Dorman wrote in post #4866897
Well all, it was a long hard decision over the past little while. I had a chance to use briefly use both lenses recently. I also had opportunities to purchase both items from reputable members of this forum: a mint used 24-70, and a BNIB 17-55. Both were decent savings over ordering from B&H, and both were substantial savings over Cdn retail prices. So what did I end up doing you might ask? *Drumroll* dddddddrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr​............

I pulled the trigger on the 17-55 F/2.8 IS! My inherent love of L lenses, IQ, build quality, and future full frame compatibility wasn't enough to overcome the simple fact that the range, speed, IS, and stunning IQ make it the best tool for the work that I'm currently doing. I just know that 24mm wide would be limiting, and really I don't want to be constantly switching to get the 17-24mm range. If all works out well the 17-40 will either be relegated to backup status, or will go to a new home to fund some other needed items (possibly a 10-22, or lighting). So thank you for your input everyone, it was indeed key to me making my decision.

Cheers.

Brad -- sometimes you just have to hold your nose and push the button. i think you did the right thing. let us know how it works out .

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #4867049
Brad -- sometimes you just have to hold your nose and push the button. i think you did the right thing. let us know how it works out .

ed rader

LOL.. pretty much.. I am getting to that point.. I keep telling myself the good thing is they don't lose much value, so if i make the wrong choice i can always sell it off for a small loss, and call it a day.

where did you purchase the 17-55 from?

That's my theory also. So far I've been lucky with buying & selling. I take very good care of my stuff & keep everything, box, papers ect. I couldn't rent a lens for as cheap as buying it, using it 1/6 months, & then turn around & selling it. The buying & selling is all part of the fun.

Mark.

Dorman: Good luck with your new lens

ECB wrote in post #4867105
LOL.. pretty much.. I am getting to that point.. I keep telling myself the good thing is they don't lose much value, so if i make the wrong choice i can always sell it off for a small loss, and call it a day.

I am surprised. I thought the L was gonna be your choice all the way through, but I just felt it would be a choice on L status. I think you made the right business choice in the end. It's a great lens and I can see how useful it would be for weddings. I also have a great 17-40, but i would never pretend it was more useful than my ex 17-55. I just have FF in my future much closer than a year.

Thanks all, it is definitely the smarter choice for my wedding, event, stock, and commercial work, and for general use as well. Now (hopefully) I'll have a great copy of both the 17-55 and the 17-40. I'll more than likely keep the 17-40 as backup to the 17-55 and for a FF move in about a little more than a year.

I too thought I was going 24-70 pretty much all the way through, but in the end the opportunity for the 17-55 from a forum member here presented itself, and common sense prevailed knowing it was the better fit with my needs. I still believe the 24-70 would have been a good choice of lens, just not quite as good for my situation as the 17-55.

Cheers!

Just an update for any of those who were following my saga.

I've had the 17-55 F/2.8 IS(Thanks JoJo!) for a few weeks now. I haven't done any serious shooting with it, but I have tested the lens, shot for the sake of shooting, and have drawn some initial conclusions.

Likes:
1. It is an extremely useful range on a crop body. It lets me go from wide angle to med portrait in a single lens. Combined with a 70-200 on a second body and you're pretty much covered for everything.
2. It is a very sharp lens, F/2.8 is excellent and I wouldn't hesitate to use it, and stopped down it only gets even sharper. I've had other F/2.8 lenses that were too soft to use 2.8 with much confidence for critical work, this is not the case here.
3. I initially didn't think I would have much need for IS at this range. I was wrong, it certainly does have it's uses and will allow you to get shots that you otherwise normally wouldn't.

So what we have is a great range, very good sharpness at all focal ranges and apertures, and IS which is killer when the situation calls for it.

Dislikes:
1. The build/feel is certainly not on par with the L lenses I'm used to using. Now, I knew this going into it but it still bothers me and makes me questions how long term this lens can be in ones lineup (also see the reports of IS failures). The lens just feels sloppy and I dislike having the seed of doubt planted in my head about it eventually failing. On a good note, no dust issues yet!
2. The colors/contrast are not as good as my L's (17-40, 70-200) out of camera, which leads to extra PP'ing time to get the images to pop and look on par to the L's.
3. While the IQ is top shelf, the bokeh isn't the most attractive.
4. Flare performance doesn't make this a great choice from landscape photography, unless of course you like flare.

Initial conclusions:
So, all in all I think it's a very good lens and a great tool to carry in a two lens setup. I still simply like using my 17-40 better and I think the images are a bit better from it as well (though admittedly it's not as versatile as the 17-55 by a long shot). I have doubts that the 17-55 will last the test of time, it does NOT inspire confidence. It may last just fine, but I hate not having that confidence.

You may see me change out the 17-55 for a 24-70 down the road (maybe while still shooting crop, maybe if/when I make the move to FF). I still like my 17-40 that much more and having a 24-70 would give me more of a reason to bring the 17-40 along, at the cost of convenience for sure.

Bottom line is I think I made the best business choice for the cameras I am currently using, whether or not it was the best choice for my personal shooting is yet to be seen. It is certainly a very nice lens and an extremely useful tool.

Thanks for reading!

Dorman wrote in post #5086398
Just an update for any of those who were following my saga.

I've had the 17-55 F/2.8 IS(Thanks JoJo!) for a few weeks now. I haven't done any serious shooting with it, but I have tested the lens, shot for the sake of shooting, and have drawn some initial conclusions.

Likes:
1. It is an extremely useful range on a crop body. It lets me go from wide angle to med portrait in a single lens. Combined with a 70-200 on a second body and you're pretty much covered for everything.
2. It is a very sharp lens, F/2.8 is excellent and I wouldn't hesitate to use it, and stopped down it only gets even sharper. I've had other F/2.8 lenses that were too soft to use 2.8 with much confidence for critical work, this is not the case here.
3. I initially didn't think I would have much need for IS at this range. I was wrong, it certainly does have it's uses and will allow you to get shots that you otherwise normally wouldn't.

So what we have is a great range, very good sharpness at all focal ranges and apertures, and IS which is killer when the situation calls for it.

Dislikes:
1. The build/feel is certainly not on par with the L lenses I'm used to using. Now, I knew this going into it but it still bothers me and makes me questions how long term this lens can be in ones lineup (also see the reports of IS failures). The lens just feels sloppy and I dislike having the seed of doubt planted in my head about it eventually failing. On a good note, no dust issues yet!
2. The colors/contrast are not as good as my L's (17-40, 70-200) out of camera, which leads to extra PP'ing time to get the images to pop and look on par to the L's.
3. While the IQ is top shelf, the bokeh isn't the most attractive.
4. Flare performance doesn't make this a great choice from landscape photography, unless of course you like flare.

Initial conclusions:
So, all in all I think it's a very good lens and a great tool to carry in a two lens setup. I still simply like using my 17-40 better and I think the images are a bit better from it as well (though admittedly it's not as versatile as the 17-55 by a long shot). I have doubts that the 17-55 will last the test of time, it does NOT inspire confidence. It may last just fine, but I hate not having that confidence.

You may see me change out the 17-55 for a 24-70 down the road (maybe while still shooting crop, maybe if/when I make the move to FF). I still like my 17-40 that much more and having a 24-70 would give me more of a reason to bring the 17-40 along, at the cost of convenience for sure.

Bottom line is I think I made the best business choice for the cameras I am currently using, whether or not it was the best choice for my personal shooting is yet to be seen. It is certainly a very nice lens and an extremely useful tool.

Thanks for reading!

Agreed.