Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 30 Mar 2009 (Monday) 15:02
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Which lens 24-70L or 17-55 2.8 ?

 
jbrown7815
Senior Member
Avatar
731 posts
Joined May 2008
Location: DMAFB,Tucson, Az
     
Mar 30, 2009 15:02 |  #1

Ok I have 40D.

I mainly shoot glamour/fashion. Occasional car shoot. Usually will have off-camera lighting. Sometimes studio.

I just started over on equipment, and just bought the 40d, so right now, I have no lenses at all.



Looking to spend around 1k on lens/lenses

My original plan was to buy 24-70 2.8L and stick with just that. As everyone says it's an awesome lens.

What about buying 17-55 2.8 & 50mm 1.4/(or)85mm 1.8


What do y'all think?


~Jesse~

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gjl711
"spouting off stupid things"
Avatar
56,281 posts
Likes: 2953
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Mar 30, 2009 15:07 |  #2

I have both the 17-55 and the 24-70. I like both lenses but I prefer the 17-55 on my crop body and the 24-70 on my full frame body. Optically the two lenses are so close as to call it a draw though the 24-70 is a bit warmer color wise than the 17-55.

But if i had to choose between the two, the answer for me is simple, Go for the one with IS. The 17-55 is more versatile because of it's outstanding IS. It is easily hand holdable down into shutter ranges where subject motion blur becomes a real concern.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
44,278 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3468
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Mar 30, 2009 15:19 |  #3

Your choice between these two lenses should be driven entirely by your range of FL available/needed for the format body that you use -- not by 'better lens', nor driven by the 'I want to buy FF in the future' sentiment.

Some people are better served by a true-wide-to-short tele FL range (17-55mm on APS-C; 28-90mm on FF); others are driven by a 'normal-to-medium-tele FL range (24-70mm on APS-C; 40mm-110mm on FF). Personally I would be best served by a 15-65mm on APS-C (or 24-105mm on FF), but that is my own need for the 'very wide' FL which provides an 84 degree AOV.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jbrown7815
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
731 posts
Joined May 2008
Location: DMAFB,Tucson, Az
     
Mar 30, 2009 15:52 |  #4

Thank you both for the good explanation/answers.

If the 17-55 has same IQ as 24-70, why does everyone rave about the 24-70? I guess the 15mm more FL helps.

17-55 is as good as the 24-70 in low light also?


~Jesse~

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GorgeShooter
Goldmember
Avatar
1,422 posts
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Oregon
     
Mar 30, 2009 15:59 |  #5

I currently have the 24-70 and recently sold my 17-55. I prefer the 24-70 because of it's superior image quality, sealed body, and build quality. My 17-55 filled with dust. Although it's somewhat easy to clean, it speaks volumes to the build quality where the 24-70 shines. At times I wish I had IS but don't miss it. I like the simplicity of a non-IS lens. I've ruined many shots on a tripod with IS turned on with my 17-55. The 24-70 is a lot heavier and that is its biggest con IMO. I think the 17-55 is over priced (again IMO).


1DX | 5D MkII (gripped)
16-35 f/2.8L | 24-70 f/2.8L | 24-105 f/4L IS | 70-200 f/4L IS | 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS | 24 f/3.5L TS-E | 45 f/2.8 TS-E | 40 f/2.8 Pancake | 15 f/2.8 Fisheye | Tokina 100 f/2.8 Macro | Canon 1.4x TC | 580 EX II | 430 EX II | Manfrotto 055CXPRO4 | Kirk BH-1
:: Smugmug :: (external link) | :: Photography BLOG :: (external link) | :: Workshops and Classes (external link) ::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
44,278 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3468
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Mar 30, 2009 16:00 |  #6

jbrown7815 wrote in post #7631192 (external link)
Thank you both for the good explanation/answers.

If the 17-55 has same IQ as 24-70, why does everyone rave about the 24-70? I guess the 15mm more FL helps.

17-55 is as good as the 24-70 in low light also?

'L' fever. Some would say the 'L' has even better color rendition.

The 17-55mm is BETTER than the 24-70mm in low light...it has IS to deal with shakey photographers!


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jbrown7815
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
731 posts
Joined May 2008
Location: DMAFB,Tucson, Az
     
Mar 30, 2009 16:12 |  #7

GorgeShooter wrote in post #7631230 (external link)
I currently have the 24-70 and recently sold my 17-55. I prefer the 24-70 because of it's superior image quality, sealed body, and build quality. My 17-55 filled with dust. Although it's somewhat easy to clean, it speaks volumes to the build quality where the 24-70 shines. At times I wish I had IS but don't miss it. I like the simplicity of a non-IS lens. I've ruined many shots on a tripod with IS turned on with my 17-55. The 24-70 is a lot heavier and that is its biggest con IMO. I think the 17-55 is over priced (again IMO).

Does having IS on decrease IQ or something?

Wilt wrote in post #7631244 (external link)
'L' fever. Some would say the 'L' has even better color rendition.

The 17-55mm is BETTER than the 24-70mm in low light...it has IS to deal with shakey photographers!

Sigh. I don't know what to get. :p


~Jesse~

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
itmfl
Member
Avatar
226 posts
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Mar 30, 2009 16:16 as a reply to  @ jbrown7815's post |  #8

i say stick with your original plan and get the 24-70


XTI | G10 | 24-105L | 30 1.4 | 85 1.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kansascityshuffle
Goldmember
Avatar
1,039 posts
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
     
Mar 30, 2009 16:17 |  #9

jbrown7815 wrote in post #7631317 (external link)
Does having IS on decrease IQ or something?

Sigh. I don't know what to get. :p


IS will actually CAUSE a vibration on a tripod. hit the switch and shut it off.


JAKE
Sony A7 - SMC M 28/2.8 - FE 35/2 Sonnar -
Contax G 45/2 Planar - Canon FL 135/2.5

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
toxic
Goldmember
3,498 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2008
Location: California
     
Mar 30, 2009 16:18 |  #10

jbrown7815 wrote in post #7631317 (external link)
Does having IS on decrease IQ or something?

On some (most?) IS lenses, IS must be turned off when the camera is on a tripod or it'll start freaking out since there's not movement.

Sigh. I don't know what to get. :p

Do you prefer wider (17-55) or longer (24-70)? Are your subjects usually static (17) or not (17 or 24)?

If you happen to prefer longer and your subjects are static...24-105 IS.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
44,278 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3468
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Mar 30, 2009 16:20 |  #11

GorgeShooter wrote in post #7631230 (external link)
The 24-70 is a lot heavier and that is its biggest con IMO. I think the 17-55 is over priced (again IMO).

Imagine the 24-70mm f/2.8L IS...how extra expensive THAT would be -- $400-500 more than it is now!


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
darosk
Goldmember
Avatar
2,806 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
     
Mar 30, 2009 16:24 |  #12

Wilt wrote in post #7631363 (external link)
Imagine the 24-70mm f/2.8L IS...how extra expensive THAT would be -- $400-500 more than it is now!

Probably be hecka heavier too :)

IMO the I'd pick the IS over the L. Also the 17-55 is wider, so +1 for that in my book.


Tumblr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Youtube (external link)
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
44,278 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3468
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Mar 30, 2009 16:28 |  #13

jbrown7815 wrote in post #7630873 (external link)
Ok I have 40D.

I mainly shoot glamour/fashion. Occasional car shoot. Usually will have off-camera lighting. Sometimes studio.

I just started over on equipment, and just bought the 40d, so right now, I have no lenses at all. Looking to spend around 1k on lens/lenses

My original plan was to buy 24-70 2.8L and stick with just that. As everyone says it's an awesome lens. What about buying 17-55 2.8 & 50mm 1.4/(or)85mm 1.8

What do y'all think?

For fashion and glamour, I think 24-70mm is a better FL range to have for APS-C. For weddings, 17-55mm is better FL range for APS-C. For walkaround shooting particularly if travelling in Europe, I would opt for the 17-55 because of 'wide' and because it is not as heavy a brick to carry, and for IS.

The 85mm is too long on APS-C...forcing you back too far, where other photographers could step into your FOV and block your shot! Solo work in the studio it would be good, for the increased isolation without concern of blocked shots, if your shooting area is large enough (min. 24' to the subject, for a full length shot!)


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
[Hyuni]
Goldmember
Avatar
1,186 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Dec 2008
Location: CHiCAGO
     
Mar 30, 2009 16:49 |  #14

Don't mean to be the devil's advocate, but have you thought about primes?

the Canon 35 f/2.0, Sigma 50 f/1.4, Canon 85 f/1.8 could be a good alternative to the zooms you suggested.

Those primes are notorious for great portrait shots.


6D Rokinon 14 f/2.8 l EF 35 ƒ1.4L l EF 135 ƒ2.0L l EF 70-200 ƒ2.8L IS II l YN460 l 580EX II l Flick'd (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kansascityshuffle
Goldmember
Avatar
1,039 posts
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
     
Mar 30, 2009 17:18 |  #15

[Hyuni wrote:
='[Hyuni];7631531']Don​'t mean to be the devil's advocate, but have you thought about primes?

the Canon 35 f/2.0, Sigma 50 f/1.4, Canon 85 f/1.8 could be a good alternative to the zooms you suggested.

Those primes are notorious for great portrait shots.


Or the 28 1.8 and Sigma 30 1.4 if we are talking about primes! That is an entirely new can of worms...


JAKE
Sony A7 - SMC M 28/2.8 - FE 35/2 Sonnar -
Contax G 45/2 Planar - Canon FL 135/2.5

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,094 views & 0 likes for this thread
Which lens 24-70L or 17-55 2.8 ?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is countrygirl67
928 guests, 273 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.