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

buckeyevet wrote:

In your opinion, is the f/2.8 worth the extra cost?  For me, I use my cheap Canon 75-300 for outdoor photos--landscapes, my child on the beach.  So, my initial thought is that I wouldn't necessarily need the f/2.8 (especially with the price difference).

Like a lot of things, it depends on the finances and needs of the user.

If you were a photography that used the 70-200 indoors a lot with available light and maybe a strobe, I would say the f/2.8 was definitely worth it.  When there's not enough light, you can use every little bit of help you can get.  Pro wedding photographers should get the f/2.8 version.

If you are on a budget and/or like to travel a lot, hand carrying your gear, I think the f4 is a better option for most people.  In some of those lens test, like DxO's, the f/2.8 IS II scored better than the /f4 IS, but, in actual use, I didn't think its a big enough difference to counter the f/4's smaller size and cheaper price.

Then there's the DOF issue.  IF you actually want decent DOF and stop down anyway, the f/4 is great --- in other words, I can shoot the f/4 IS wide open all day.

So why did I go for the f/2.8 IS mk II?  I made the mistake of trying one.  I already owned a f/4L IS and have borrowed a friend's f/2.8 IS mk I for months.  Take enough pictures with the mk II and you are convinced it is well worth the price.

The f/4 IS held its value.  I sold it four years after I bought it for slightly more than I originally paid for it.  A year later, I wish I still had it for when I want to travel and am trying to decide if it really is worth bringing the f/2.8L IS.

So in short, unless you can come up with significant personal justification, I think you should go for the f/4L IS over f/2.8L IS II.

And I will definintely share my comparison of the Canon 17-55 with my Tamron.  I can probably post the photos too...just have to figure how to crop them with my software and post them.

I am curious manly because of the advancements in lens technology.  Back when I bought my 40D and 17-55/2.8, the alternative was a Sigma 17-50.  That Sigma version put this weird yellow cast to the images, probably due to the lens coatings.  Although I haven't tried them, I wonder what the newer Tamron and Sigma lens can do.