24-70 vs 17-55 on 7D

Mastamarek wrote in post #11011758
what about 24-105!?? that lens can still hold its own ^_^
or what about 17-40!?? its basically 24-70 on a cropper.
we really need to discuss this issues guys as it has never been before.
what about 15-85? thats about $720 so right there with 17-40.

so maaaany choices ^_^ lol

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! this is why there are so many mass murderers in today's world.

Marloon wrote in post #11011760
I guess one kitty didn't work. Do i need to get another? DO I?!

Still leaves 7 more lives and 7 more replies.

JLai81 wrote in post #11011748
Easily the 17-55. It has IS and is sharper.

How many threads are there where people say their 24-70 isn't sharp wide open?

Really, the only advantage the 24-70 has is build.

Again, the only thing that really matters when deciding between the two is focal length.

Even if the 17-55 were sharp enough to make out green men on Mars, the 24-70 would still be my preference if I needed 24-70 on a single lens rather than 17-55. And vice-versa, of course.

Shadowblade wrote in post #11011724
Plastics are hydrocarbon-based (i.e. based on organic molecules), not necessarily oil-based. Just that the most convenient source of most hydrocarbons currently happens to be oil! Kevlar is basically formed by a condensation reaction between two such organic compounds, each based around a benzene ring.

thank you!

Shadowblade wrote in post #11011774
Again, the only thing that really matters when deciding between the two is focal length.

Even if the 17-55 were sharp enough to make out green men on Mars, the 24-70 would still be my preference if I needed 24-70 on a single lens rather than 17-55. And vice-versa, of course.

While I agree, the fact that he's considering both lenses tells me that he's ok with either focal length...Otherwise he wouldn't need this thread. In any case, I prefer the 17-55 focal length because I'd rather shoot wide and crop if I need to. Can't do the opposite (shoot long and recover).

Had the 17-55 sold it for the 24-70L. Better build quality, no dust issues, and the colors are just better. Plus I plan on moving up to FF.

17-55 on 7D for me. No dust issue for me either.

I've had both ... now I only have the 17-55.

Shadowblade wrote in post #11011282
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.

+1

"Plastics" get a bad rap for no good reason, when the higher grades of thermoplastics and composites can actually be a better substitute, and actually exceed most metals' physical properties in specific applications.

By some peoples' definition of 'plastics', the McLaren F1 road car's chassis is made from plastic, nylon and pencil lead...

.

How about the 15-85? I am trying to decide 17-55 or 15-85 or 24-105.The 15-85 is Not a fast lens but got great reviews.
And no I am never going full frame, unless Canon makes a FF with 10fps and the 7D AF, and that's not going to happen...

GoFaster2 wrote in post #11022954
How about the 15-85? I am trying to decide 17-55 or 15-85 or 24-105.The 15-85 is Not a fast lens but got great reviews.
And no I am never going full frame, unless Canon makes a FF with 10fps and the 7D AF, and that's not going to happen...

By all accounts that I've read, the 15-85 is very close to the IQ of the much loved 17-55. Almost too close to call, unless you are pixel peeping.

The main reason people choose the 17-55 despite it's smaller range, is mostly for the constant f/2.8.

In short, the 15-85 is a smokin' good walkabout lens, for the money.

.

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.

I will be a dissenting opinion (different strokes for different folks, that's all)...I have shot weddings in three formats (645, 135, ASP-C) 17-55mm is a perfect range for wedding coverage with APS-C with the minimum of lens changing!

I also have Tamron 28-75mm, and that FL range makes for a wonderful one-lens studio portraiture lens, shooting from about 8-10' from the subject.

The choice of which lens should be FL range driven! Neither FL range is wrong, just different. I complement my 17-55mm or 28-75mm with a Tokina 11-16mm at the WA end, and a 70-200mm at the tele end.

Other characteristics like IS are secondary considerations to useful FL range for you, beerba.

Wilt wrote in post #11023538
I will be a dissenting opinion (different strokes for different folks, that's all)...I have shot weddings in three formats (645, 135, ASP-C) 17-55mm is a perfect range for wedding coverage with APS-C with the minimum of lens changing!

I also have Tamron 28-75mm, and that FL range makes for a wonderful one-lens studio portraiture lens, shooting from about 8-10' from the subject.

The choice of which lens should be FL range driven! Neither FL range is wrong, just different. I complement my 17-55mm or 28-75mm with a Tokina 11-16mm at the WA end, and a 70-200mm at the tele end.

Other characteristics like IS are secondary considerations to useful FL range for you, beerba.

17-55 on crop or 28-75 on full frame at 8'-10' will get you group shots to half-body portraits - you won't get tighter head-and-shoulders, or especially facial details, shots without getting closer. At 24-70 on crop, you're still wide enough for group shots, but have more stand-off distance for tigter crops.

17-55 was the first lens I bought. I didn't realize just how good is was until I bought a few other lenses (Sigma 10-20mm, Sigma 18-250mm). Focusing is fast, f2.8 rocks, ppl say it attracts dust but I haven't found this even after a year.

I don't think you'll be disappointed with either lens, but I would miss the 17mm to 24mm range for sure. Pick one and don't look back.

For me, even if I had to do it all over again i'd still buy the 17-55mm. Go to flickr and check out the pics taken with this lens if you are wondering about picture quality.

the brick does 56-70mm better than the 17-55. for me, that focal range didn't matter and i wanted wider. i also don't care about having a gap in my focal range.

think about all the people dying for an upgrade of the 24-70. people are begging for better optics and IS. no one's really dying for an upgrade of the 17-55. obviously, a better build may be welcomed by many, but no one's begging canon for it.