Could someone post a 17-55 IS, 24-70L side-by-side?

I was curious to see how much less conspicuous the 17-55 is compared to a 24-70 as a walkaround lens. I like the 24-70 quality but unlike the 50mm 1.4, don't "blend" in as well when I use it.

I've played with both and have a couple of the 17-55, there's not a huge difference in size. 17-55 is 110mm long by 84mm wide, the 24-70 is 123mm and 83mm. Weight is 645g for the 17-55, 950g for the 24-70. For a crop body I suggest the 17-55 unless you want something longer.

Apart from the red ring, both are pretty huge lenses (relatively to the 50mm prime, before someone posts a link to the 1200 5.6).

There are side by side pics here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Thanks Perry,

I didn't realize they were that close in size. When you look at the standalone pic it just doesn't look as big for some reason.

djscrib wrote in post #4813357
Thanks Perry,

I didn't realize they were that close in size. When you look at the standalone pic it just doesn't look as big for some reason.

i've owned both as well as the 24-105L. the 17-55 and 24-105L are almost identical in size and weight.

the 24-70L is about .5 lbs heavier, and really does feel heavier.

also, because of the revolutionary back asswards zoom movement the 24-70L -- aka "the brick" -- is fitted with a bucket hood so it really does appear larger than life .

i don't believe there is a bigger or heavier zoom in this range.

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #4813454
also, because of the revolutionary back asswards zoom movement the 24-70L
ed rader

LOL! I am gonna start adding 'ass' in the middle of words because of you. Usually it's between words, like huge-ass lens (note the difference in meaning between this and 'huge ass-lens!!').

When you put on the hoods, they are both of similar size, though the 24-70L is slightly bigger, and heavier. Unfortunately, neither of those zooms will be "stealthy"...

Pardon my ignorance but can someone explain the performance of a 24-70 on a crop camera like my 40D.

I want to buy a walkabout lens and wouldn't rule out a FF camera in a year or two.

I know the 17-55 is a good lens but if i wanted a L lens and a 24-70 what kind of pictures would i get with it. Is it compatable with my 40D?

Sorry for being a berk!

Regards

Ian Munro

ed rader wrote in post #4813454
also, because of the revolutionary back asswards zoom movement the 24-70L -- aka "the brick" -- is fitted with a bucket hood so it really does appear larger than life .

Can anyone explain the logic behind this reverse extension functionality?

Crossfire wrote in post #4813903
Can anyone explain the logic behind this reverse extension functionality?

The hood remains mounted on the barrel in a fixed position, and does not extend with the moving part of the lens. At the long end, the lens is retracted and is deep within the hood for maximal protection against stray light, etc. At the wide end, the lens extends and is less enclosed by the hood - because a shallow hood is more appropriate for wide angle shooting.

THE TROOPER wrote in post #4813881
Pardon my ignorance but can someone explain the performance of a 24-70 on a crop camera like my 40D.

I want to buy a walkabout lens and wouldn't rule out a FF camera in a year or two.

I know the 17-55 is a good lens but if i wanted a L lens and a 24-70 what kind of pictures would i get with it. Is it compatable with my 40D?

Any EF lens works on any EOS camera. You should buy what you need now, not "gee I might want full frame in a year or seven". Lenses can be sold, and retain their value pretty well.

simon_says wrote in post #4813944
The hood remains mounted on the barrel in a fixed position, and does not extend with the moving part of the lens. At the long end, the lens is retracted and is deep within the hood for maximal protection against stray light, etc. At the wide end, the lens extends and is less enclosed by the hood - because a shallow hood is more appropriate for wide angle shooting.

Great, thanks. That makes a lot of sense

Crossfire wrote in post #4818809
Great, thanks. That makes a lot of sense

I have been going between the two lenses myself and went with the 24-70L as it was only like $150 more. So for the better build, weather sealing, I'd figure its worth it. Also like you If I ever go FF in the future, I will be good with the lens.

Also read about dust problems with the 17-55, not sure if you have run across that info in your research.

I have used both........and just rec'd a new 24-70 today-----first in comparison the 24-70 is HEAVY compared to the 17-55. Either would be a great choice and hold their value well.