Canon 17-55 f/2.8 or Canon 24-70 L f/2.8 to replace Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

Marcos Villaroman wrote:

I own a 17-55/2.8, 24-105 and 24-70/2.8 II along with a 40D, 5D2, and 5D3 bodies.

For me, it's a question of how frequently you will shoot wide and how you feel about swapping lens to shoot wide.

I find the 17-55 heavy and the 24-70 heavier.  I really don't like carrying a lot of lens with either of those in my bag and found I shoot wider than 35mm equivalent enough that I can't stand a standard zoom lens that can only go 24mm wide.

Wide angle is tough for APS-C.  So unless you got a 10-22 zoom handy, going with a 24-70 means you're keeping your Tamron around.

For my needs, I would go 17-55 over the 24-70.

If you find you don't need to swap that often for wide angle, the 24-70 is a great option, but, it cost a lot.  If you go with the 24-70/2.8L mk I, be aware that its zoom mechanism can wear out sooner than other lens designs requiring repairs.

If you go with the 24-70/2.8 mk II, ask yourself if your spending priorities are right (i.e,. consider a FF 5D body instead).  I personally would consider the new Tamron 24-70/2.8 over the 24-70/2.8L (either version).

Thanks Marcos!

Your advice on the spending priorities is just what I needed to hear!  I've spent so much time reading reviews of the 24-70/2.8 mk II on BHphoto, Steve's Digicam, here, Amazon, Adorama etc. that it had me believing that I needed to spend that kind of cash to get the quality I want out of my prints.  Yet, when I upgraded my camera body, the 5D was out of my price range!

So, your solid advice has me rethinking the persuasion all of the reviews I read!

And I admit, that I was begining to think that I'd still need the Tamron if I went with the Canon 24-70, because it likely won't be wide enough for some of my needs.

Out of curiosity, do you find the 17-55 so heavy that it's a serious detractor from the lens?