24-70 vs 17-55 on 7D

I've owned both, and there's no comparison on an APS-C camera. The 17-55 has a more effective range than the 24-70.

The difference between 17mm and 24mm is BIGGER than the difference between 55mm and 70mm. Oh.. and you get IS as a bonus.

bkdc wrote in post #11006414
I've owned both, and there's no comparison on an APS-C camera. The 17-55 has a more effective range than the 24-70.

The difference between 17mm and 24mm is BIGGER than the difference between 55mm and 70mm. Oh.. and you get IS as a bonus.

Only if you what you need happens to be a 'standard' zoom going from wide (but not UWA) to short telephoto. If that were the *only* lens you owned, it'd be a good choice. If you own more than one lens, it probably isn't particularly useful - a UWA plus the 24-70 would probably be a more useful combination. If you shoot events, the 55-70mm range will probably be more useful than the 17-24mm range.

Shadowblade wrote in post #11006460
Only if you what you need happens to be a 'standard' zoom going from wide (but not UWA) to short telephoto. If that were the *only* lens you owned, it'd be a good choice. If you own more than one lens, it probably isn't particularly useful - a UWA plus the 24-70 would probably be a more useful combination. If you shoot events, the 55-70mm range will probably be more useful than the 17-24mm range.

That is about what i am thinking,,,,,,, i think.

17-55! Bought it used for $900 a couple of years ago. Stays on my camera 90% of the time.

17-55 is a GREAT RANGE for crops
but just for personal preference (and style)... 24-70.
55 is kinda too short for my taste... =D

Shadowblade wrote in post #11006322
Besides, there's nothing wrong with plastic - after all, what do you think bulletproof vests are made of?

Kevlar or spectra shield not plastic. Plastic sucks only slightly worse for bullet proof vests than it does for camera gear. Just saying.

shutterkicks wrote in post #10998861
I'd go for the brick. Can't stand plastic at that price. It'll be a wise investment if you're planning to go FF someday.

i feel the same way. it hurts to spend that much and get "ok" build quality. no thanks. although i know the 17-55 has many fans, it ain't for me.

lens pirate wrote in post #11009835
Kevlar or spectra shield not plastic. Plastic sucks only slightly worse for bullet proof vests than it does for camera gear. Just saying.

Kevlar is a type of polyamide, just like nylon. You can't say nylon isn't a plastic. We use high-density polyethene - another plastic - as a cartilage substitute in joint replacements, where they have to cope with extreme amounts of compressive and shear forces on a continuous basis.

I think 'plastic' often gets a bad name due to the number of cheap, disposable items made from low-density polyethene on the market - made as such because manufacture of LDPE items by injection moulding is exceptionally easy, and the base material cheap - and the fact that many cheap manufacturers use thinner-than-optimal thicknesses of more expensive plastics, when they must be used. Usually made in China en masse (since they have a unique combination of a high-tech workforce and relatively cheap labour), then sold at prices to undercut better-constructed, but more expensive, goods. Most plastics used as structural material in camera gear are polycarbonates (e.g. Lexan) - plastics with a very high impact resistance, providing for protection when the item is dropped. Even the 70-200L lenses - which are very well constructed - make significant use of polycarbonate components. Also, the fact that these plastics are lighter than their metal counterparts makes for less energy to be dissipated when the lens is dropped.

plastics are oil based, is kevlar oil based?

for all of these stupid threads, i wonder how many people actually make the jump to buy a $1000+ lens. Some people just cant swallow that amount - this is what pisses me off about these threads and the fact that it's HIGHLY redundant.

Oh and it'll be the 17-55 for me. Either that or get a 5Dc and go primes like the 35L.

The 17-55 has IS, is as sharp and sometimes sharper than the 24-70L, and is lighter.

The 24-70 is not as wide (and the 7mm at the wide end is more noticeable than the 15 at the long end), is weather sealed, is FF capable, but is heavier.

Both hold their value.

You will spend 25% more for the 24-70 than the 17-55. You have to decide the merits of this. If you get the 24-70L, then I suggest you also get the Sigma 12-24 to fill that gap, and it is also FF capable.

I loved the 17-55 on my 40D. I love my 24-70 on my 5D2.

Sportidi wrote in post #11006225
This is an easy one.

The 17- 55 is good wide but it doesn't have enough reach.
Its made of plastic
It's not weather sealed.

The 24-70 is wide enough and has good reach.
Its made of metal.
It's weather sealed.
Its heavier but its tough.

Therefore its the 24-70 all the way............

And yet, the only lens I had to send to Canon because focus was hit or miss was the tank like, rugged 24-70...

17-55! there I finished it. MUST WE GO ON?

Jmantyger wrote in post #11011618
And yet, the only lens I had to send to Canon because focus was hit or miss was the tank like, rugged 24-70...

And here as well, 2 out of 3 24-70s in my case were poor on focus, the last one worked much better. I have had 3 17-55s, and 2 out of 3 were very sharp wide open, the first one needed stepped down just a little.