Reading mode: Light Dark

EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS VS EF 24-70 f/2.8L

Go to last post
I

imqqmi

Veteran Member
Messages
8,647
Solutions
4
Reaction score
160
Location
NL
I do graduations. ballet and other events regularly now and I'm in the market to buy a new lens to better facilitate this. My current lens line up for events is this:
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 ex
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 ex
Canon 85mm f/1.8

If I don't need wide angle I use both primes as those are the focal lengths that works well for me on two 40Ds. I sometimes use the zoom if I need wide angle for very large group pictures in tight spaces, but I rather use anything above 24mm on a crop camera to prevent distortion if I can.

I'm now considering to get a new lens. In part because I really love the 85mm colors compared to the 30mm sigma, which I attribute to the canon coatings/glass. I shoot in raw and use Lightroom to process all my shots and the 85mm f/1.8 shots are always keepers. And it's easier to adjust WB, it just looks better than the sigma in the same conditions. I've got a great 30mm copy though no complaints there but I'm looking for something that makes it easier to process large amounts of shots in short order (between 150 and 400 per shoot).

The sigma 18-50mm AF isn't too accurate, I've also dropped a 350D with this lens mounted and the front element has a bit more play than I like so it's probably a good idea to replace it. It's still plenty sharp though, for landscapes it's good enough but not at crucial moments when AF should be accurate on the first shot.

So I'm looking at the 17-55 and 24-70mm lenses. My list of priorities is as follows:

1 image quality (Good color and contrast most importantly, and low distortion too)
2 Portrait range
3. Fast and accurate AF in low light

4. Usable wide open. I often shoot at f/2.8 with primes, but with zooms it'll have be wide open.

5. Anything that can be used as general walk around lens. I may keep the 18-50mm for that so it's not a necessity.

It would be nice to replace the sigma 18-50mm with the 17-55, not only for paid shoots but also for travel and landscapes. But during shoots I take a lot of portrait shots with focal lengths that the 24-70mm covers better than the 17-55.

I will still use the 85mm f/1.8, but what lens would you get/recommend to complement it? Or should I jut get a replacement for the sigma and get the canon 35mm f/1.4L?

As for build quality the 85mm is good enough for me and if I'm not mistaken the 17-55 is abou the same.

Is there any difference between the L and EF-S zooms color wise? Are they comparable with the 85mm or close?

Any input is greatly appreciated!

--
Kind regards
Imqqmi



http://www.pbase.com/imqqmi
 
imqqmi said:
...on two 40Ds.
Click to expand...
If you're staying cropped, go with the 17-55 and dont' look back. It's superior to the 24-70 in almost every way for APS-C sensors. It's too bad Canon doesn't make a 17-55 equivalent for FF.
imqqmi said:
1 image quality (Good color and contrast most importantly, and low
distortion too)
Click to expand...
The 17-55 is tack-sharp and contrasty from f/2.8 on. The 24-70 is not that sharp @ f/2.8 for dense pixel arrays. It's decently "sharp" on the low-density 5D (MkI) body, but not on highly dense sensor arrays like the one in the 40D.

The 24-70, however, does have better colors, at least in my opinion. I don't need to do any PP work on my colors unless I'm at high ISO or otherwise screw up the exposure.

The 17-55, however, needs just a tad of a saturation boost.
imqqmi said:
2 Portrait range
Click to expand...
The 17-55 will slot in nicely with your 85mm. For portraits, I'd stick with primes anyways.
imqqmi said:
3. Fast and accurate AF in low light
Click to expand...
Both are very fast and very accurate. I've had very few "misses" with either my 17-55 (on my 400D) or 24-70 (on my 5DMkII).
imqqmi said:
4. Usable wide open. I often shoot at f/2.8 with primes, but with
zooms it'll have be wide open.
Click to expand...
The 17-55 begs to be used wide-open, while the 24-70 is somewhat soft wide open.
imqqmi said:
5. Anything that can be used as general walk around lens. I may keep
the 18-50mm for that so it's not a necessity.
Click to expand...
The 24-70 isn't called the "wedding brick" for nothing. It is perhaps the largest, heaviest standard zoom made for 35mm bodies. The 17-55 isn't a lightweight, either, but it is somewhat lighter and smaller.
imqqmi said:
It would be nice to replace the sigma 18-50mm with the 17-55, not
only for paid shoots but also for travel and landscapes. But during
shoots I take a lot of portrait shots with focal lengths that the
24-70mm covers better than the 17-55.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's always the delimma, isn't it ? However, since you have 2x 40D, you can keep the 85mm on one body, and the 17-55 on the other.
imqqmi said:
I will still use the 85mm f/1.8, but what lens would you
get/recommend to complement it? Or should I jut get a replacement for
the sigma and get the canon 35mm f/1.4L?
Click to expand...
The only "upgrade" replacement for the 85mm f/1.8 is the 85mm f/1.2. The 85mm f/1.8 is a great lens for its price.
imqqmi said:
As for build quality the 85mm is good enough for me and if I'm not
mistaken the 17-55 is abou the same.
Click to expand...
It seems about the same, yes. However, I'm not rough on my equipment, so I doubt I've come anywhere close to breaking any of the 85mm f/1.8, 17-55 f/2.8, or 24-70 f/2.8 lenses.
imqqmi said:
Is there any difference between the L and EF-S zooms color wise? Are
they comparable with the 85mm or close?
Click to expand...
It is noticable, yes. The 24-70mm is closer to the 85mm for colors, but the 17-55 colors are easily corrected in post. Whereas the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 has a definite "yellow" color cast, the 17-55 is simply desaturated. The 24-70 colors are some of the best I've experienced from a zoom.
imqqmi said:
Any input is greatly appreciated!
Click to expand...
Even though the 24-70 has better colors than the 17-55, the sharpness, contrast, and IS of the 17-55 easily tip the balance in favor of the 17-55. It's also cheaper than the 24-70 by at least a $200 or so.

To put it another way, you can fix small color "errors" in post, but you can't add detail that's not there. So, I'd go with the 17-55 and don't look back. It is easily one of Canon's best zooms whereas the 24-70 is simply not.
 
Personally I find the 24-70L is excellent for portraits - mine is sharp at all focal lengths, and is great at F2.8. I really love the focal length range of the 24-70 for portraits on crop cameras.

--
Canon 40D
FujiFilm F20

http://www.pbase.com/timothyo
 
I have Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS / Canon 100mm f/2 and Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. While I love 50-55mm f/2.8, I often wish I have & need more "telephoto compression." On that note, if you are looking for the BEST PORTRAIT zoom, Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 gets my #1 recommendation. I rarely shoot wider than 24mm for people portraits, and 70mm @f/2.8 does deliver noticably more telephoto compression than 55mm @f/2.8.

However, since you have TWO 40d, I would still buy the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS for one 40d, and leave the 85mm f/1.8 on the other 40d. This way, you retain both the IS and the wide angle options.
 
It's superb wide open at all focal lengths, it's stabilized and it also has the wide part. It will complement the 85mm well.

The 24-70 is heavier, more expensive and has a more limited zoom range. It lacks stabilization and it's not that great wide open at 70mm. It might receive an update from Canon soon. It is sealed and FF compatible, though.

If you don't require FF compatibility, the 17-55 is a far better choice imho.

--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bogdanmoisuc/
 
David C Harris said:
imqqmi said:
...on two 40Ds.
Click to expand...
If you're staying cropped, go with the 17-55 and dont' look back.
It's superior to the 24-70 in almost every way for APS-C sensors.
It's too bad Canon doesn't make a 17-55 equivalent for FF.
David C Harris said:
1 image quality (Good color and contrast most importantly, and low
distortion too)
Click to expand...
The 17-55 is tack-sharp and contrasty from f/2.8 on. The 24-70 is not
that sharp @ f/2.8 for dense pixel arrays. It's decently "sharp" on
the low-density 5D (MkI) body, but not on highly dense sensor arrays
like the one in the 40D.

The 24-70, however, does have better colors, at least in my opinion.
I don't need to do any PP work on my colors unless I'm at high ISO or
otherwise screw up the exposure.

The 17-55, however, needs just a tad of a saturation boost.
David C Harris said:
2 Portrait range
Click to expand...
The 17-55 will slot in nicely with your 85mm. For portraits, I'd
stick with primes anyways.
David C Harris said:
3. Fast and accurate AF in low light
Click to expand...
Both are very fast and very accurate. I've had very few "misses" with
either my 17-55 (on my 400D) or 24-70 (on my 5DMkII).
David C Harris said:
4. Usable wide open. I often shoot at f/2.8 with primes, but with
zooms it'll have be wide open.
Click to expand...
The 17-55 begs to be used wide-open, while the 24-70 is somewhat soft
wide open.
David C Harris said:
5. Anything that can be used as general walk around lens. I may keep
the 18-50mm for that so it's not a necessity.
Click to expand...
The 24-70 isn't called the "wedding brick" for nothing. It is perhaps
the largest, heaviest standard zoom made for 35mm bodies. The 17-55
isn't a lightweight, either, but it is somewhat lighter and smaller.
David C Harris said:
It would be nice to replace the sigma 18-50mm with the 17-55, not
only for paid shoots but also for travel and landscapes. But during
shoots I take a lot of portrait shots with focal lengths that the
24-70mm covers better than the 17-55.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's always the delimma, isn't it ? However, since you have
2x 40D, you can keep the 85mm on one body, and the 17-55 on the other.
David C Harris said:
I will still use the 85mm f/1.8, but what lens would you
get/recommend to complement it? Or should I jut get a replacement for
the sigma and get the canon 35mm f/1.4L?
Click to expand...
The only "upgrade" replacement for the 85mm f/1.8 is the 85mm f/1.2.
The 85mm f/1.8 is a great lens for its price.
David C Harris said:
As for build quality the 85mm is good enough for me and if I'm not
mistaken the 17-55 is abou the same.
Click to expand...
It seems about the same, yes. However, I'm not rough on my equipment,
so I doubt I've come anywhere close to breaking any of the 85mm
f/1.8, 17-55 f/2.8, or 24-70 f/2.8 lenses.
David C Harris said:
Is there any difference between the L and EF-S zooms color wise? Are
they comparable with the 85mm or close?
Click to expand...
It is noticable, yes. The 24-70mm is closer to the 85mm for colors,
but the 17-55 colors are easily corrected in post. Whereas the Sigma
30mm f/1.4 has a definite "yellow" color cast, the 17-55 is simply
desaturated. The 24-70 colors are some of the best I've experienced
from a zoom.
David C Harris said:
Any input is greatly appreciated!
Click to expand...
Even though the 24-70 has better colors than the 17-55, the
sharpness, contrast, and IS of the 17-55 easily tip the balance in
favor of the 17-55. It's also cheaper than the 24-70 by at least a
$200 or so.

To put it another way, you can fix small color "errors" in post, but
you can't add detail that's not there. So, I'd go with the 17-55 and
don't look back. It is easily one of Canon's best zooms whereas the
24-70 is simply not.
Click to expand...
Thank you David for your comprehensive answer. The cost is no issue to me although saving a few euros would be nice, I could sell the sigma 18-50mm too saving a little more. I'm still tempted by the color performance of the 24-70mm though.

Would it be possible to post a few crops of both the 17-55 and 24-70 in similar light wide open? I have no idea how much of a difference there is between them.

Thanks in advance!

--
Kind regards
Imqqmi



http://www.pbase.com/imqqmi
 
007peter said:
I have Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS / Canon 100mm f/2 and Sigma 18-50 f/2.8.
While I love 50-55mm f/2.8, I often wish I have & need more
"telephoto compression." On that note, if you are looking for the
BEST PORTRAIT zoom, Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 gets my #1 recommendation. I
rarely shoot wider than 24mm for people portraits, and 70mm @f/2.8
does deliver noticably more telephoto compression than 55mm @f/2.8.

However, since you have TWO 40d, I would still buy the Canon 17-55
f/2.8 IS for one 40d, and leave the 85mm f/1.8 on the other 40d.
This way, you retain both the IS and the wide angle options.
Click to expand...
Thanks Peter, I agree that I rarely shoot wider than 24mm either. Ballet sometimes needs the wider end too to get the whole stage in the frame.

--
Kind regards
Imqqmi



http://www.pbase.com/imqqmi
 
Thank you Bogdan.
Bogdan_M said:
The 24-70 is heavier, more expensive and has a more limited zoom
range. It lacks stabilization and it's not that great wide open at
70mm. It might receive an update from Canon soon. It is sealed and FF
compatible, though.
Click to expand...
IS is not that important to me, I'll use fast shutterspeeds to prevent subject motionblur (often 1/200ss) so there's little chance of motion blur. I'm certain I will upgrade to a 1D at one point but for now I'll stick with the 40Ds and try to get something that fits the bill now.

3 votes for 17-55 and 1 24-70 so far.
--
Kind regards
Imqqmi



http://www.pbase.com/imqqmi
 
Here is my experience, I just returned the 17-55 for the 24-70L.

Cost is about neutral when you consider you have to buy the Hood and case for the 17-55. The 17-55 is a great lens.

I think our situations are similar though. I shoot a lot of indoor volleyball and in travel tournaments am right on the sidelines so my 70-200 2.8L IS is too long. I need something that can focus fast and get a bit wider, assume same requirements you have for ballet.

My experience was that the 17-55 was too wide and just not long enough. Image quality is great, focus speed is good, build "feels" a bit off when used to the 70-200L.

I returned it for the 24-70L to get that little bit extra reach, and to have the build of the L glass. For $100 more I figured I got a lifetime lens and not one I have to find a home for if I upgrade to FF from 50D. Also it is an L lens which means its built like a tank and earns the name the "brick"

However, if you do alot of low light low speed hand held work, the IS on the 17-55 might help you alot. Or if your going to be lugging it around all day the 17-55 is a lighter option.

I wish Canon made a 2.8 24-85 (or 100) that would give me just enough overlap with the 70-200 for back line shots.

Both are good lenses, and for the price difference it really comes down to;
-Do you need IS -really
-Any chance you might someday go FF.

Me went with the 17-55, but swapped it for the 24-70L

Good luck with your decision.
 
... the 24-70 when I'm shooting portraits or other non-moving subjects and I'll have time to focus manually in LiveView.

... the 17-55 when I'm in low light, sports action, or theatre and I want accurate autofocus.

I lovelovelove my 24-70's color, sharpness, and smooth, creamy OOF areas. But I have to confess it's not the sharpest tool in the bag when it comes to autofocusing in tricky lighting (e.g., low light, low contrast, or backlit subjects). My 17-55 snaps to focus quickly and reliably on all my camera bodies (400D, 40D, 50D) even in dismal lighting such as high school gyms.

All this said... I've used both lenses successfully in similar conditions (high school/youth theatre), but my go-to lens for theatre is a 70-200/2.8IS used from the back of the house. For the most part, I only use the wider lenses for curtain calls and a few "supplementary" shots to give a different perspective during rehearsals.

--
geek
--
A 'must watch' for forum participants everywhere!
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
 
17-55/2.8 is the best standard zoom for APS-C. If you don't plan to migrate to FF, just go with this lens. It has IS and it's also wider comparing to 24-70 what also makes sense. 24-70/2.8 has better colors indeed. What do I really miss is true L equivalent of 17-55/2.8 IS.
P.S. 85/1.8 is great lens as well. I even sold my 50/1.4 for 85/1.8.

--
Eugene Skopinceff
http://www.BalticPhoto.com
 
I'll make a proxy vote. The chap I bought my 17-55 from had both. He preferred the 17-55 and was sorry to see it go as he got more keepers from it, but he had just upgraded to a 5D MkII so he couldn't keep it. He told me this after I won an Ebay auction and had paid up, so he didn't really need to sell it to me at that point and he anyway came across as a very genuine person. His particular niche application was classical music recitals.

Have had it for 3 weeks now on a 450D. Focus accuracy has pretty much been 100% no matter what the lighting (which is more than I can say for my kit) and I can't see a difference between live view contrast and viewfinder phase AF at a 100% crop. I haven't felt the need to reach for my 50mm f1.4 since I bought it and the colours seem rich enough to me, although I'm now thinking I'll do a comparison against the 50mm for my own interest having read comments above. In my case stopping down to f4 brings an improvement in sharpness, but it's nice to have a stop in reserve. The only aspect I regard as dissapointing for a lens in this bracket is the vignetting at 17mm. I thought it was the lens hood at first it's so "severe". Easy fix in DPP though.
 
How could 70mm on full frame be long enough for you if 55mm on APS-C is not?
CooperD said:
For $100 more I figured I got a
lifetime lens and not one I have to find a home for if I upgrade to
FF from 50D.
Click to expand...
 
I won't, just some stats.

I've been looking at a lot of pictures on pbase done with both lenses. My verdict is that a lot of bad shots can be made with both lenses, even the L with full frame camera's ;) But the good shots look great regardless what lens or camera.

I lean towards the 24-70 because of the reported better color and contrast, I think those properties are more important than sharpness to evoke emotion by the viewer.

But then the 17-55 is more flexible and is wider, lighter, cheaper and IS, and the 70mm is close to 85mm.

If only I could get both and give them a good workout and decide which one to keep!

--
Kind regards
Imqqmi



http://www.pbase.com/imqqmi
 
I know what you meant. Just trying to point out it will be a totally different lens on full frame camera.
 
With IS and 17mm wide, 17-55 is a much better choice imo. Some might say they don’t need IS or 17mm wide but believe me most people do. 17-55 is also the sharpest Canon standard zoom lens if you do care about IQ.
 
For xxD or xxxD or xxxxD the 17-55/2.8IS is the best normal zoom. I use it all the time. Now I got the 24-70/2.8 for 5DII as that is the normal zoom. I do miss IS very much on the 24-70.
--

What camera do I have? I rather you look at my photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/gavinz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top