17-85 IS-USM or the 24-70 F2.8 L

Anybody curently own both of these lenses? If so, what are your thoughts (pros and cons). Looking to purchase one of these as my next purchase for a 20D. Looking to use as a travel lens.

Pretty big difference in price between the 2.

For the 20D, I would pick neither really. The 24-70 is quite heavy as a travel lens. Not a fan of variable apperture zooms such as the 17-85. Probably not that big of an improvement over your 18-55 IS kit lens to be honest.

With that said, my pick for your camera is the 17-55 2.8 IS. Probably the best zoom lens for the crop cameras.

s2kennyc wrote in post #9638410
With that said, my pick for your camera is the 17-55 2.8 IS. Probably the best zoom lens for the crop cameras.

That. Or for a budget closer to 17-85, a Tamron 17-50 2.8

I would go to a store or find a club or something where you can test it. I personally find the 24-70 focal length fine on a crop.

But as stated it is a bit heavy. What are you looking for in a "travel lens"?

i'd suggest you also consider a 15-85. much better than the 17-85 so the reviews)

as for the 24-70, if you don't mind the weight, and can live with the lack of wide-angle, it's a great lens. for the same price, you might also want to consider the 17-55

If you ever plan on upgrading to a full frame camera... I would say go for the 24-70L. Another good choice is the 24-105L ... I used that on my Rebel series cameras for quite some time.

I've shot with my Sigma 24-60 for over 2 years and my friend just got a 24-70L (for his 40d) and he loves it. 24mm isn't that bad unless you like to shoot very wide alot. I think with a 28mm (tamron 28-75) I would find that too long on crop.

The 17-85 is not in the same league as the 24-70L. Are you sure you didn't mean the 17-55IS?

I just bought the 24-105 for my 7D tell you how it is once it arrives. I'm not a fan of variable aperture lenses either.

Traveling with the 24-70L

The 24-70L is a superb lens but, it is a heavyweight. Additionally, although I am not a wide angle buff, I find that I need a wide angle lens when traveling with the 24-70L. The approximate 38mm equivalent is just not quite wide enough.

The 17-55mm f/2.8L IS is a great choice for a travel lens for the 1.6x format. In fact when I add my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens to the 17-55mm, I can shoot in just about any travel and general photography venue.

However, if I were thinking about upgrading to full frame, I would choose the 24-105mm f/4L IS as my travel lens.

Thanks everybody for your input so far. I will carfeully read thru them and make a list of what is important to me and compare them based on your comments.

i have owned both in the past, and still currently own the 24-70.

i was never happy with the picture quality from the 17-85... however the focal range was nice.

i would spring for the 17-55 2.8

i'd tried with most lenses mentioned here and then some. i'm sticking with my Tokina 16-50 f2.8. Think of it as a Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS without the IS, and construction quality of and L.