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

Looks like we have almost the same lens lineup, in terms of zooms.

I'm also considering the 24-70 f/2.8L. I've had my 17-55 for more than a year now, and love it. The thing that is keeping the 17-55 with me is its image stabilization. I wish the 24-70 were IS too, in which case I would've gotten it (if adding the IS didn't add hundreds of dollars to the pricetag, which it probably would). I notice that the 17-55 at the long end still has some perspective distortion on tight head and shoulders portraits. I really would like to use 70mm for those shots...but will most likely wait until FF drops in price before I stop using my 17-55 .

Why don't you sell your 70-200 f4 and add some extra money to buy the 24-70 ?

Sfordphoto wrote in post #5087797
Looks like we have almost the same lens lineup, in terms of zooms.

I'm also considering the 24-70 f/2.8L. I've had my 17-55 for more than a year now, and love it. The thing that is keeping the 17-55 with me is its image stabilization. I wish the 24-70 were IS too, in which case I would've gotten it (if adding the IS didn't add hundreds of dollars to the pricetag, which it probably would). I notice that the 17-55 at the long end still has some perspective distortion on tight head and shoulders portraits. I really would like to use 70mm for those shots...but will most likely wait until FF drops in price before I stop using my 17-55 .

The image stabilization is nice, but it was more the range that was the deal clincher for me.

prinspaul wrote in post #5087818
Why don't you sell your 70-200 f4 and add some extra money to buy the 24-70 ?

Don't think I haven't thought about it.

I own both of these lenses, still can't see all the fuss. The 17-55mm on APS-C is like using the 24-70L on film, which I also do.

IS plays no real role. You simply buy the lens for the focal length. You can't purchase a 24-70 with IS and you can't purchase a 17-55mm w/o it.

You get a 28-88mm/2.8 on APS-C with the 40D (17-55mm)
You get a 24-70mm/2.8 on FF with L.
Or you get a 38-112mm/2.8 with the L on an APS-C.

So purchase for focal length and ignore the rest...

Ignore IS and build these lenses cost the same out of pocket, buy for focal length only.

MrChad wrote in post #5089332
IS plays no real role. You simply buy the lens for the focal length. You can't purchase a 24-70 with IS and you can't purchase a 17-55mm w/o it.

So purchase for focal length and ignore the rest...

Ignore IS and build these lenses cost the same out of pocket, buy for focal length only.

That is pretty much precisely what I did, I bought for the range alone as IS was simply icing on the cake. I have no complaints with the image quality of the lens itself, it's sharp and if its lacking contrast/saturation that can be handled in post.

What I didn't count on was just how poor the build/feel is - while this may not be a big deal for most it is something that is going to bother me regardless if it becomes an issue or not. The seed of doubt will follow me around, and no matter how useful the lens is it may eat at me. Coupled with this is the fact that I love everything about my 17-40, except for the limitation of F/4. I love the build, feel, handling, IQ, color, contrast, flare resistance, etc. The 17-40 is simply more enjoyable to use. Perhaps I should've gone with the 16-35 or 24-70!

For now, the 17-55 seems to be the best business decision whether I enjoy it or not.

Dorman wrote in post #5094111
That is pretty much precisely what I did, I bought for the range alone as IS was simply icing on the cake. I have no complaints with the image quality of the lens itself, it's sharp and if its lacking contrast/saturation that can be handled in post.

What I didn't count on was just how poor the build/feel is - while this may not be a big deal for most it is something that is going to bother me regardless if it becomes an issue or not. The seed of doubt will follow me around, and no matter how useful the lens is it may eat at me. Coupled with this is the fact that I love everything about my 17-40, except for the limitation of F/4. I love the build, feel, handling, IQ, color, contrast, flare resistance, etc. The 17-40 is simply more enjoyable to use. Perhaps I should've gone with the 16-35 or 24-70!

For now, the 17-55 seems to be the best business decision whether I enjoy it or not.

I loved my 17-40mm as well, but with an f/2.8 in the bag its unlikely to be used so it was sold.

I drug around a cheap 28-105mm plastic kit lens for years. The barrel had a physical slop at full extention and a plastic mount. It never let me down. It's unlikely a 17-55mm will fail, ever, even under pro-use. If the lens physically dies in your hands from use rather then abuse then great - feel accomplished that you took that many photos you killed a lens. Use that as an excuse to go 24-70L and FF. Odds are Canon will repair the bugger for like $250 anyhow helping to diffur upgrade costs anyhow when you sell on eBay

MrChad wrote in post #5095063
I loved my 17-40mm as well, but with an f/2.8 in the bag its unlikely to be used so it was sold.

I drug around a cheap 28-105mm plastic kit lens for years. The barrel had a physical slop at full extention and a plastic mount. It never let me down. It's unlikely a 17-55mm will fail, ever, even under pro-use. If the lens physically dies in your hands from use rather then abuse then great - feel accomplished that you took that many photos you killed a lens. Use that as an excuse to go 24-70L and FF. Odds are Canon will repair the bugger for like $250 anyhow helping to diffur upgrade costs anyhow when you sell on eBay

I agree with this for the most part, aside from the IS unit failures that have been reported. Unfortunately for me I simply really love using my 17-40, much to the fact that I can't part with it even if it is relegated to backup or 2nd fiddle. That makes me think I should have something to compliment it, rather than to replace it. I'll drive myself batty debating whether I made the right choice or not... I think I did?

Dorman wrote in post #5095077
I agree with this for the most part, aside from the IS unit failures that have been reported. Unfortunately for me I simply really love using my 17-40, much to the fact that I can't part with it even if it is relegated to backup or 2nd fiddle. That makes me think I should have something to compliment it, rather than to replace it. I'll drive myself batty debating whether I made the right choice or not... I think I did?

How rampid is this "IS" failure it's the first I've heard of this...

MrChad wrote in post #5100426
How rampid is this "IS" failure it's the first I've heard of this...

If you do a search in the lens forum here you'll find a number of threads with IS failure. It is/was very frequent within the wedding forum/wedding shooters who use this lens constantly. Some of them have had to replace their IS units 2+ times.

Lloyd's (Picture Crazy) advise is to leave the IS off unless needed...

Dorman wrote in post #5100516
If you do a search in the lens forum here you'll find a number of threads with IS failure. It is/was very frequent within the wedding forum/wedding shooters who use this lens constantly. Some of them have had to replace their IS units 2+ times.

Lloyd's (Picture Crazy) advise is to leave the IS off unless needed...

Why? If it breaks in use isn't that about the same? That's like never turning on your A/C for fear it will wear out and not work while you sweat to death in the house or car.

Might as well get full use of it until it dies, does the lens stop working when the IS quits? If it dies so what, turn it off and keep shooting - it was a bonus feature if you ask me anyhow. You buy this for a 17-55mm/2.8 crop lens.

MrChad wrote in post #5101840
Why? If it breaks in use isn't that about the same? That's like never turning on your A/C for fear it will wear out and not work while you sweat to death in the house or car.

Might as well get full use of it until it dies, does the lens stop working when the IS quits? If it dies so what, turn it off and keep shooting - it was a bonus feature if you ask me anyhow. You buy this for a 17-55mm/2.8 crop lens.

Very true, either way it's something to consider. Some light reading for you Mr. Chad about the IS failures... there's also plenty of 17-55 supporters slamming the 24-70 for focus/soft issues at the same time so it's not biased.

https://photography-on-the.net …78&highlight=17​-55&page=4

Dorman wrote in post #5102778
Very true, either way it's something to consider. Some light reading for you Mr. Chad about the IS failures... there's also plenty of 17-55 supporters slamming the 24-70 for focus/soft issues at the same time so it's not biased.

https://photography-on-the.net …78&highlight=17​-55&page=4

Didn't see much beyond one guy with an IS issue. I did a search on IS failure and just didn't find much else for the lens either.

Love both my 17-55mm IS and 24-70L. No issues thus far ("knock" on wood)
Loved my 17-40mmL before I sold it too.

If you look hard enough someone has/had or will have issues with every one of these lenses. As well as the popular list of 3rd party zoom. I liked my Siggy 18-125mm DC too but you wouldn't know from some in the forum.

MrChad wrote in post #5103659
Didn't see much beyond one guy with an IS issue. I did a search on IS failure and just didn't find much else for the lens either.

Love both my 17-55mm IS and 24-70L. No issues thus far ("knock" on wood)
Loved my 17-40mmL before I sold it too.

If you look hard enough someone has/had or will have issues with every one of these lenses. As well as the popular list of 3rd party zoom. I liked my Siggy 18-125mm DC too but you wouldn't know from some in the forum.

There's quite a few shooters that chime in in that thread with failures as well, and many more at the forum that all the weddings photogs left this place for - but that's another story. Yes you dig deep enough and there are problems with most of the popular lenses, the brick is no exception either.

I did some extensive testing and side by side shooting with my 17-40 tonight and I'm not entirely sure what I'm going to do. While the 17-55 is good, I'm just not jiving with it the way I hoped. You may see it morph into a 24-70.

I'm such a nutcase.

Go the 24-70, and then start saving for a 5D. Then you'll really be cooking!