EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM -or- EF24-70 f/2.8L

Help me choose

The reviews seem to go 50/50. The IS on the 17/55 will be useful and is exceptional in low light but the general concensus is that the build quality is poor in spite of good optics. One review is saying the lens is L series quality except for the build, another shows crops where a 17-40 leaves it standing. Prices here are pretty close so where would you go?

Would you keep everything you already have, or is this replacing something? Your current gear list looks pretty full in that range with the 10-22, 17-40, and 24-105.

I'm a big fan of IS. You have a few yourself, so you know what it can do. Interesting to see that you have the non-IS version of the 70-200/4.

I have the 17-55IS and have considered adding the 24-105IS. If the 24-70/2.8 had IS, I'd probably be looking at that instead.

Topic has been discussed multiple times. If you search this forum, there is a great review of the 17-55 vs the 24-70 vs. the 24-105. For crop body, the 17-55 is a pretty clear winner.

I think it's one of the best lenses Canon makes, period. Best walkaround for a crop period.

I own them both

I purchased the 24-70mm f/2.8L lens when Canon introduced the 24-105mm f/4L IS and many photographers were dumping their 24-70L lenses in favor of the new IS lens. This caused a momentary dip in the used prices and I got mine for $850 in primo condition.

The 24-70L is an outstanding lens but there are a couple of downsides which IMO are the need to carry a wider lens to supplement the 24mm side of the L glass (I used a 12-24mm Tokina which matches very well with the 24-70L) and the fact that it is a pretty massive and heavy lens.

I bought the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens for a trip when I could only carry one camera and one lens. This is another outstanding lens and has only two downsides (besides the high price). I wish the lens was a bit longer and I wish it focused a bit closer.

I now use my 17-55mm for general travel and non-studio photography and use my 24-70L in the studio.

The weight of the 24-70L doesn't bother me in the studio because I am not carrying it around for hours. The 70mm side is IMO better for portraits and the 24mm side is not too narrow because my studio is gigantic (half of my RV garage). and I can "zoom with my feet". Additionally the 24-70L will allow me a better closeup capability and I can shoot many shots with this lens that I would have needed to switch to my macro for if I was shooting the 17-55mm.

Each lens has its niche but, honestly, if I owned the 17-55mm first, I don't believe that I would have purchased the 24-70L.

its simple really: if you want a nice thick neck and bulging forearms, get the 24-70L. if not, get the 17-55IS. you wont notice a difference in image quality, but your significant other will notice a difference in your physique! i bought the brick and cancelled my gym membership...

your style may be different from ours but im also confused if i should trade my 17-55 with either 27-70 or 24-105.

im actually tempted to swap my 17-55 for the 24-70 as i like the longer reach, but then again i use the 17 end alot as well

Your shooting style will vary from mine, but I traded my 24-70 for the 17-55 and haven't regretted the decision once. I do not miss the 55-70mm range between my lenses at all and the IS and wide side of the 17-55 is all that I could ask for in a normal lens.

i know, i should get both!