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

buckeyevet wrote:

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?

Please share your experiences with the 17-55 vs. your old Tamron.  It'll be nice to see how they compare.

I've gone through three 70-200 lens:

1. 70-200/4L non-IS --- upgrade from 75-300 non-IS.  Real eye-opener on color, image quality, etc.  Was so sharp, I can clearly see how I could benefit from IS and so sold it to a friend within a month

2. 70-200/4L IS --- awesome lens.  I regret selling it to help pay for a 70-200/2.8.  This lens is lighter and a bit smaller.

3. 70-200/2.8L IS II --- aside from the size/weight of a f/2.8, this lens really rocks optically.  It comes close to a 135L (although can't match the 135's bokeh) and a 100L macro (at long focal lengths of course).

In short, I do recommend the 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8L IS II.  I can also see getting a 70-300L instead of a 70-200/4L IS.

For maximum sharpness, I like the option of IS.  I'm not at my best at the end of a long day of shooting as it is.

I don't have experience with the 70-200f4, but I totally agree with point #3. If you can handle the size, weight, and color, the 70-200 2.8 is II is an absolutely magnificent lens. Very sharp, excellent color and contrast, one if the best built I've seen in modern lenses. If you shoot indoors a lot, the IS II makes a lot of sense, but if you shoot primarily in good light, the f4 could save you some weight and money.
--
Gear: Anything to shoot with, be it a phone, a disposable camera, or my kids Nerf digi-cam.