24-70----->17-55?

Hey all,
I have read countless threads on comparisons and such.
Still am unsure about dong it though. I want to get rid of my 24-70 2.8 and get a 17-55???

I only use my 24-70 on my 1D and that leaves my 20/40D "stuck":p with a 70-200 or 10-17mm on certain shoots.

Has anyone made this switch and been satisfied with the 17-55 coming from the L?
I just want to use my little cams more often.

I have both. My conclusions thus far are: IQ is same, color same.

The questions is do you need IS and the wider FL w/o having to change lens? Do you shoot much wider than 17mm often? Can you swing both lenses since you have two bodies?

I was going to get rid of my 24-70, but since taking it out of storage and using it, I'm having 2nd thoughts.

I have both and I am considering selling the 24-70. The 24-70 is a great lens but I am not using it very often.

I have owned both on a 1.6 and I much prefered the 17-55 for my shooting style.

Right now you only have one lens that's for APS-C only. If you swap the 24-70 out for the 17-55, you'd then have two lenses you cannot use on the 1D.

I prefer the 17-55. The IQ is excellent. If you're not concerned about the L build quality, then the 17-55 is a more useful focal length range on a crop, in my opinion. IS is helpful, even at 17mm. Then again, I have shaky hands, so...

What would you use in that range on the 1D if you sell the 24-70, though?

I had the 17-55 before swapping it for a 24-70. The ONLY reason I did so was because I'm going full frame soon (and selling the 450D).

cdifoto wrote in post #8423993
Right now you only have one lens that's for APS-C only. If you swap the 24-70 out for the 17-55, you'd then have two lenses you cannot use on the 1D.

I dont have any lenses for APS-C,
the tokina is usually on my 1D at 11.5 mm.

But yes, that is my goal, to have a lens that can only be used on 20/40D

I'm a true believer of the 17-55. I love it. I took my daughter to nearby cave this morning and took the camera. I have plenty of keepers that were hand held at 1/8 and 1/15 with no problem. I'm not sure my flash is going to get much use.

Keep the L glass...

If you're planning to sell the 24-70mm, let me know hehe

I own both the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 24-70mm f/2.8L lenses. Both of these are excellent lenses but, I tend to use them in two different ways.

I first owned the 24-70mm f/2.8L lens and used this lens in combination with 70-200mm f/4L IS and Tokina 12-24mm f/4 ATX lenses. I would use this combination with at least two 1.6x cameras and sometimes carry a third camera with lens mounted. I absolutely hate to switch lenses during shooting and since I cut my teeth on film cameras with prime lenses, using multiple camera bodies is second nature for me.

The three lens system gave me an unbroken focal range of 12-200mm and excellent IQ and autofocus capability throughout the range. It was, however a fairly heavy combination to carry and, even if dispensed with the third camera. The 24-70L upon which I based this outfit is a pretty big and heavy lens.

I wanted to cut down the weight of my system for travel purposes and decided that the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens might cover both the 24-70L and 12-24mm lenses. Obviously, I would not be as wide as with a 12mm focal length but, I thought that I could make do with 17mm as my wide side since I am not a great fan of UWA shooting.

The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lens combination has become my go-to travel and general purpose photo combination.

• I have a very decent focal range and don’t miss the gap between 55mm and 70mm.
  
  
  
• I have a constant f/2.8 aperture and IS capability in my mid-range zoom. This provides me with a very good low light capability.
  
  
  
• The two lens/two camera combination is relatively light weight. At least in comparison to the 3 camera and 3 lens combination based on the 24-70L.

• The extra weight doesn‘t bother me because I am not carrying it around for 8-10 hours.
  
  
  
• The 24mm wide side is not constricting since my studio is rather large.
  
  
  
• The lack of IS is no problem since I always shoot with studio flash.
  
  
  
• I like the 70mm long end better for head and shoulder portraits than 55mm.
  
  
  
• The image ratio I can achieve with the 24-70L is larger than with the 17-55mm and therefore, I can shoot some close up shots without resorting to a macro lens.

Then man up and get the 17-55. You won't regret it.

I just sold my 17-55 last night only because I plan to switch formats. I'm not able to compare it to the 24-70 but the 17-55 is an excellent quality lens and very functional.

Bob Tilton wrote in post #8428474
I just sold my 17-55 last night only because I plan to switch formats. I'm not able to compare it to the 24-70 but the 17-55 is an excellent quality lens and very functional.

If i were you I would get the 24-105.
Because you getting a thinner DoF in larger format you will not miss 2.8 much, save for low-light shooting.

mikeassk wrote in post #8422691
Hey all,
I have read countless threads on comparisons and such.
Still am unsure about dong it though. I want to get rid of my 24-70 2.8 and get a 17-55???

I only use my 24-70 on my 1D and that leaves my 20/40D "stuck":p with a 70-200 or 10-17mm on certain shoots.

Has anyone made this switch and been satisfied with the 17-55 coming from the L?
I just want to use my little cams more often.

If you are assuming that the EF 24-70 and the EF-S 17-55 would provide the same field of view range on a 40D, for example, you are quite mistaken. Is this what you think?