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:

buckeyevet wrote:

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?

Before buying the 24-70/2.8 mk II, I rented the new Tamron 24-70 and the 24-70/2.8L mk I.

That new Tamron was an awesome lens and was every bit as good as the Canon.

Head-to-head between the Tamron and the mk II reviews shows the Canon focuses a little bit faster and has a little bit better optical quality, and maybe a bit better bokeh.  But, is a little bit better worth $1000 more???

The Canon 17-55 is about the same size and weight as the 24-105L and uses a 77mm diameter filter.  It feels bigger than the 17-85 IS I upgraded from.  The 24-70 is significantly bigger and heavier --- at least to my hands and shoulder.  Honestly I don't think weight and size of the 17-55 is a big detractor.  It just adds up in your camera bag; mine had: 17-55/2.8, 70-200/4L IS, 10-22.   Since my shoulder can carry no more than 12 lbs all day for 5+ days, I usually left the 10-22 or 70-200 at the hotel when on travel.

The thing I hate about buying a 17-55 now is that it's been out for a very long time.  I've seen how awesome the new lens designs with their new lens coatings perform vs. the older models.

One last thing:  if you can, try out the Canon 17-55 against your old Tamron before pulling the trigger.  Some people don't see the difference being a worthy upgrade.  Personally it took me a while before I appreciated why the 17-55 optically was a better fit for me than the 24-105L.

My rented Canon 17-55 just happened to arrive as I started typing this.  So I plan to give it and my Tamron a side by side challenge this weekend.

Thanks for the very practical advice.

By the way, which 70-200 do you have?  Are you pleased with it?