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 26 Oct 2010 (Tuesday) 03:10
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17-55/2.8 or the 24-70/2.8

 
Jeff ­ Smith
Member
102 posts
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Medford, OR
     
Oct 26, 2010 03:10 |  #1

I'm going to buy one of these two very soon for my 7D. Which is the better choice in your opinion?

Jeff


Jeff
Canon 7D gripped | 70-200 2.8L IS | 100mm 2.8L Macro IS USM | EFS 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM | 50mm 1.8 II | EFS 17-85 4-5.6 IS USM | EF 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM | Speedlite 580EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,520 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 593
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Oct 26, 2010 04:58 |  #2

Depends on the intended purpose. The 17-55 is a better general walkabout / landscape lens because the range overs wide ange.

The 24-70 is a better lens for portrait work because it is a little longer.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike
ugly when I'm sober
Avatar
15,397 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 381
Joined Nov 2006
Location: Canterbury/Ramsgate, UK
     
Oct 26, 2010 05:54 |  #3

I agree with Jeffrey - it all depends on your intentions.

When I only had crop cameras I had a 24-70 but I had to get a 10-20 lens for wider stuff - 24mm was just not wide enough for landscapes and shooting in tight places.


www.mikegreenphotograp​hy.co.uk (external link)
Gear
UK South Easterners
flickr (external link) Insta1 (external link) Insta2 (external link)

A closed mouth gathers no foot.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bkdc
Senior Member
Avatar
888 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Aug 2007
Location: NoVA
     
Oct 26, 2010 05:57 as a reply to  @ Mike's post |  #4

If you don't plan on going full-frame and don't shoot on rainy days, get the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. The IS is a little noisy compared to the newest IS, but it's a sweet performer.


RF 24-70 f/4L IS | RF 50L | EF 35L II | EF 40 f/2.8 pancake | EF 85 f/1.4L IS | EF 100L IS Macro | 600EX-RT x 3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sleibrand
Senior Member
Avatar
635 posts
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Ohio
     
Oct 26, 2010 11:42 |  #5

I need a new car. Should I get a Civic or an Escalade?

You have both focal ranges covered with your 17-85. Take a look for yourself and see which range does what you need.


Canon Gear: 5D3, 6D, 7D, 20D, 16-35 II, 24-105, 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 35L, 50 f1.4, 50 f1.8, 50 f2.5, 85 f1.8, 400 f5.6, 1.4x, 600EX (x2), ST-E3
Sigma 150 Macro, Tokina 10-17 Fish, Einsteins, ABR800

My Flickr Page (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Stir ­ Fry ­ A ­ Lot
Senior Member
679 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Berkeley, Ca
     
Oct 26, 2010 12:58 |  #6

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …56/shrike71/sea​rchpic.gif (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | Byte size: ZERO

Flickr (external link)
5D3 | 5Dc | 7D | Tok 16-28 | 24-105 | 17-55 | 70-200 f4 IS | Pancake 40 | Sigma 50 | 85 1.8 | Yongnuo 565EX | Demb Flash Bracket | DiffuseIt Bounce Card | Manfrotto 535 CF Tripod | 2x Yongnuo YN560s | 2x PBL Softbox Umbrellas | CyberSync Triggers | Epson R3000 | A very understanding wife

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gart
Senior Member
Avatar
462 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 142
Joined Sep 2007
Location: D/FW metro
     
Oct 26, 2010 14:37 |  #7

You will need to be more specific of what you intend to use it for or you will be subject to the type of responses above.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tancanon58
Senior Member
Avatar
965 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2009
Location: southern california
     
Oct 26, 2010 14:41 |  #8

I bought 24-70L for using with 7D and 5D2 whereas 17-55 only works for 7D.:lol:


Bodies: 5D MkIII/ Oly ED-M5/ G10
Lenses: Tamron SP 24-70 2.8 Di VC /and some Panny and Oly lenses.
Flash: Canon600EX RT.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thatkatmat
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,340 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 199
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, don't move here, it's wet and cold
     
Oct 26, 2010 14:48 |  #9

Right, but then....I would grow to miss the daily 17-55 or 24-70 or 24-105 or.....threads...:cool:

Stir Fry A Lot wrote in post #11168705 (external link)
IMAGE NOT FOUND PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …56/shrike71/sea​rchpic.gif (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | Byte size: ZERO


My Flickr (external link)
Stuff
"Never rat on your friends and always keep your mouth shut." -Jimmy Conway
a9, 12-24/4G, 24-70/2.8GM, 100-400GM, 25/2 Batis, 55/1.8ZA, 85 /1.8FE, 85LmkII, 135L...a6300,10-18/4, 16-50PZ, 18-105PZ

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RPCrowe
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,109 posts
Likes: 1360
Joined Nov 2005
Location: San Diego County, California, USA
     
Oct 26, 2010 14:50 |  #10

I have both the 17-55/2.8 and the 24-70/2.8

I shoot with 1.6x bodies and 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. However, I seriously doubt that in real-life, day-to-day use; you will notice any great difference in the image quality between these two great lenses.

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 kit to carry and, even if dispensed with the third camera. The 24-70L upon which I based this kit is a pretty big and heavy lens. I never considered an extreme range zoom such as 18-200mm since these zooms do not provide the image quality I demand, are slower in auto-focus and will have a considerably slower maximum f/stop.

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 just about 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. When I shot film, 28mm was the widest that I wanted or even needed.

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.

1. I have a very decent focal range and don’t miss the gap between 55mm and 70mm.

2. 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.

3. 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.

However, I like my 24-70L as my main studio lens because:

1. The extra weight doesn‘t bother me because I am not carrying it around for 8-10 hours.

2. The 24mm wide side is not constricting since my studio is rather large.

3. The lack of IS is no problem since I always shoot with studio flash.

4. I like the 70mm long end is better for head and shoulder portraits than 55mm.

5. 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.

That all said; I bought the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens while I owned the 24-70mm f/2.8L and I like using these two lenses for their particular strengths. However, if I had purchased the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens first, instead of the other way around, I seriously doubt if I would have bought the 24-70L.


See my images at http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jeff ­ Smith
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
102 posts
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Medford, OR
     
Oct 27, 2010 20:17 |  #11

Sorry, I should have been more specific in my op. I want a 2.8 lens for low light conditions and will sell the 17-85 to help fund the purchase. I just moved up from a 30D to the 7D and have no plan on going FF any time soon so I'm not worried about that. I take a lot of landscape pictures and very few portraits. Thank you all for the information so far.


Jeff
Canon 7D gripped | 70-200 2.8L IS | 100mm 2.8L Macro IS USM | EFS 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM | 50mm 1.8 II | EFS 17-85 4-5.6 IS USM | EF 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM | Speedlite 580EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark-B
Goldmember
Avatar
2,248 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Louisiana
     
Oct 27, 2010 20:25 |  #12

Both lenses are good and both are f/2.8. That leaves these considerations:

(1) Do you need image stabilization?
(2) When using your 17-85, do you shoot more between 17-24 or 55-70?

Use the answers to those questions to decide which one to buy.


Mark-B
msbphoto.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
eg6turbo
Senior Member
388 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: San Francisco
     
Oct 27, 2010 20:29 |  #13

17-55 because of the IS for low light...the 24-70 pretty much sucks for low light compared to the 17=55...try shooting your 17-85 in ok light without IS and see what i mean.


| Canon Rebel T2i Gripped | EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM | EF-S 18-55 IS | EF-S 55-250 IS | EF 50 1.8 MK II | EF 85 1.8 USM | Speedlite 430EX II |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
District_History_Fan
Goldmember
2,286 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2008
     
Oct 27, 2010 20:36 as a reply to  @ Mark-B's post |  #14

The 24-70L is pure magic on a full frame camera, I find it less magical on an APS-C camera. The 17-55IS on a cropper reminds me of the 24-70L magic on FF.

The 24-70L has better build but no stabilizer. AF is quicker on the 17-55IS, but the 24-70L is no slouch either.

I found the 24-70L to be very sharp wide open on the 5D2 (once Canon New Jersey got finished with it) but the 17-55IS is considerably sharper wide open than the 24-70L was on my 50D.

As much as I loved the 24-70L, it was sold to fund a 17-55IS. I am happy with that decision. The 17-55IS is an amazing lens, designed to excel on our crop cameras.

Maybe one day Canon will seal the 17-55IS to match the 7D and update it to 4 stop IS. That would ROCK!


www.ericmcferrin.smugm​ug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tanglefoot47
Goldmember
Avatar
2,413 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Tulalip WA about 40 miles north of Seattle
     
Oct 27, 2010 20:38 |  #15

Stir Fry A Lot wrote in post #11168705 (external link)
IMAGE NOT FOUND PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …56/shrike71/sea​rchpic.gif (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | Byte size: ZERO


I hate when people do this search thing what's the big deal about people asking same question over and over again sometimes someone will bring something new to the plate so no harm done keep asking. I like the 24-70 the most but the 17-55 IS is an awesome lens also




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

3,673 views & 0 likes for this thread
17-55/2.8 or the 24-70/2.8
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 armychemical
535 guests, 221 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.