17-55 or 24-70

[Andrew_WOT]

You are absolutely right, spending same $1000 plus on cheaply build sucking dust plastic EF-S with prone to failures IS and useless on FF would make them feel much better.

Focal range wise they are apples and oranges. If you want to cover 17mm range, get 17-55 or if you plan for FF and prefer better built stuff, 17-40 or 16-35 II, but neither is a substitution for 24-70, rather a complement. They all are missing important for portrait work 50-70 focal range and all image stabilization in the world will not make up for that.

From "Canon Portrait Lens Recommendations"
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Portrait-Lens.aspx

Conventional teaching is that the 85-135mm focal length range is ideal for portrait photography (field of view crop factor included).

Let's put some math to work, 17-55 on crop translates to 27-88, you have 3mm of ideal portrait range covered.

Now with 24-70 you'll get 38-112, 27mm worth of coverage, that is you have 85-112 versus 85-88 on 17-55, that's translates into much more flexibility and ability to get a nice close up w/o getting into face of you subject. I personally rarely use anything outside that range on 24-70, just having 17-55 alone would make absolutely no sense for me.

Just go after focal length you personally need the most now and fill the gaps later.

The only reason someone with an entry level crop body will pick a 24-70 is because you are blinded by the "L" and want to own one. But I think thats a valid reason though, L lenses are just nice to look at while the 17-55 looks like a giant kit lens.

Yes it's a valid reason long as you know that's what you are spending your money for. Spending $1000 to buy an L lens is as jusitifiable as for people who spend $1000 to buy a disigner bag for that feel good factor. On the other hand it's weird that people always try to invent those funny reasons (IS is not useful, IQ is not that important, wide end is not necessary, it's weather sealed for a non-wheather sealed camera, it fits full frame camera that I don't have.....) to defend that his/her money was not spent on a better lens for taking better photographs.

 

[schatz]

You are absolutely right, spending same $1000 plus on cheaply build sucking dust plastic EF-S with prone to failures IS and useless on FF would make them feel much better.

Sorry Andrew, the lens is not cheaply built, vast majority report no dust (all reports I saw were very early models), I have heard of maybe 2 reports of IS failure, but you are right, useless on FF. It may not be the brick that the 24-70 is but it sure isn't flimsy. The 17-55 is sharper, has useful IS and has better color rendition.

As others have stated if FF is in your very near future, then consider the 24. Otherwise the 17-55 is far better.

(Even if I eventually pick up a FF camera body, I would absolutely keep one or more of my crop cameras for action, reach and FPS. The 17-55 is so good that it delays the impulse to go FF. Ditto the 60mm Macro.)

Bob

 

[KLO82]

I am suffering from the same dilemma. To me, 24-70 has much more useful focal length at the long end than 17-55, specially for portraits (I will not miss 17-23mm range that much). On the other hand 24-70 does not have IS which is a big turn off. 17-55 is also sharper than 24-70 on crop body. Now I am waiting for 24-70 II to come out which hopefully will have IS. In that case, I am completely for the 24-70 (II) IS.

I have a 550D with the kit lens 18-135 IS. My friend is selling some of his zooms (says he wants to go prime) and he is giving me good deals. Among the zooms he is selling, I am particularly interested in the 17-55 and the 24-70.

Yes both of them are 2.8 with a few differences such as the focal lengths, L, EF-S/EF mounts, IS etc. No matter, I can get either at very very good prices so money is not an issue (friendly prices ).

Since I have just used my kit lens, I really do not know the difference between the two in terms of focal length; their reach, how wide, how far they can zoom etc. I've read lots of threads here and I still am confused. I use a crop body and here are my questions:

1) using the 24-70 at 24mm, let's say I focus on a car lengthwise with the car's front is at the left-most of the frame and the car's back at the right-most part of the frame. let's say I use a tripod so this "scene" or frame will stay put. will this "scene" or frame be the same if I switch/use the 17-55 zoomed at 24mm?
2) the 24-70 is equivalent to 38.4-112 on a crop body correct?
3) will the 17-55 have the same reach as 24-70 on my 550D?

4) what is (if there is at all) the FF focal length equivalent of the 17-55 in terms of focal length in a crop body?

Thanks in advance.

-wolv

 

[Peter 13]

You are absolutely right, spending same $1000 plus on cheaply build sucking dust plastic EF-S with prone to failures IS and useless on FF would make them feel much better.

I am starting to think that dust and plastic must improve resolution:

24-70 at 35/2.8



17-55 at 35/2.8:

 

[Gravi]

The 17-55mm is a great lens! Good quality, nice zoom range, etc.

Check your current images: do you use the 18-135mm often at its wider part? (18 to 24mm)? If so, go 17-55. If not, you could consider the 24-70. Although it does not have IS, it does give you a lens that you can keep if you ever consider switching to FF.

I considered switching, but decided not to. I'll stick to my 17-55 as my main lens, and I'll be happy doing so!

--
Regards,
Gravi

 

[Majoren]

Since I have just used my kit lens.

What is your kit lens?
What else does your friend offer?

• Some zoom lenses will be a very good match with your kit lens?
• flash?
• primes?

Anyway

If you really only consider between 17-55 and 24-70
I 'd say go for the 17-55 forget the 24-70 .

Reasons.

Faily Wide angle covers
IS.

But also because of handling:
The 17-55 is much better balanced on your camera than the 24-70

55 -> 70 mm is "cropable" in post, A4 print will still be looking great.

Post cropping is boring and time consuming work when you could have gotten it right at the scene.

I dont think the 15mm added reach is eneoughto get it right often eneough to justify the 24-70 on crop

I have a 50D I started with the 17-55 and replaced it with the 24-105L
The 17-55 is better balanced on 50D and those two lenses weights the same,

The 24-70 is much heavier, and you camera is lighter. You will notice.

If your friend will let you borrow the two lenses for 2-4 days you will be able to decide much better wich you prefer.

Majoren

 

[TheoC]

Unless ypu plan to upgrade to FF, buy the 17-55. But bear in mind that its build quality is not good, I have one that I bought at bargain price but with fair amount of dust inside. The dust does not affect the image quality but it does degrade the optical elements in the long run. So if you get a clean copy of the 17-55, put an uv filter to reduce the intake of dust. The 24-70, which I do not have but which I have shot with, has excellent build quality and shall fare better in the long run ( I do not know what in the long run means, someone had mentioned that in the long run we shall all take the road of universal flesh). I find image quality of both lenses to be fairly comparable.

 

[carlk]

On the other hand it's weird that people always try to invent those funny reasons (IS is not useful, IQ is not that important, wide end is not necessary, it's weather sealed for a non-wheather sealed camera, it fits full frame camera that I don't have.....) to defend that his/her money was not spent on a better lens for taking better photographs.

Good thing that you did not say speed is not valuable... oh let's leave that for the 24-105 defenders.

 

[tonyjr]

I have the 17-55 , seldom leaves camera . 24 is not wide enough for me . I have a hole between 55 and 70 mm . If you shoot [ check some shots ] stay in your comfort Zone . Both are worth having .
I will use what I have till the 24-70 or 24-105 are upgraded to 2.8 and IS .
--
1st it's a hobby
7D gripped XTI gripped
Canon - efs 10-22 , 17-55 , ef 18-55 IS
EF 28-90 , 28 @ 2.8 , 50 @1.8 , 28-135 IS
L's 35-350 , 70-200 MK II IS
Quantaray lens 70-300 macro
Sigma 135 - 400
2X III , Life Size converter
KSM filters for all
kenko auto tubes , EF 25

 

[Majoren]

Good thing that you did not say speed is not valuable... oh let's leave that for the 24-105 defenders.

More in same ballgame

Good thing that you did not say speed is not valuable... who cares about 1.4
oh let's leave that for all the zoom defenders.
OR

Good thing that you did not say FL versaltility is not valuable... oh let's leave that for the 18-270 defenders.
OR......................

• Give it up Carl.

• All lenses are POS.

• Each an every lens is flawed!

It is always posiple to find at least one specification where one lens is better than another. If no technical, then you have the final killer spec. price!

Majoren

 

[carlk]

• Each an every lens is flawed!

A great one! No lens is better than the other since they are all flawed.

Long live the red stripe!

 

[nielss]

i heard that the 17-55 is a high risk lens what means, eat dust, IS problems...

 

[Peter 13]

i heard that the 17-55 is a high risk lens what means, eat dust, IS problems...

With some dust inside and failed IS, it would still be lighter, cheaper, with better range and sharper.

 

[grammieb14]

--I have had the 17-55 since it came out. It is sharp & it along with my 70- 200 4 IS are
My two favorite zooms. No one knows if c

Canon is going to make a 5D with 7D af, I have no dust issues or is issues with my lens & if you do get a FF camera one day you may decide as I did to keep both. Your choice, just giving you my experience. Enjoy whatever you decide.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28700476@no8/

 

[carlk]

A BMW or a Porsche may not have reliability that matches that of a Honda but it's still a better and more desirable car.

Anyway the dust and IS issue is way over-exaggerated. Mine has been used hard for more than 5 years and never had any of these issues. One of my L lens 300/4 has way more dust on the front element than my 17-55 and it's not even a zoom lens. Another of my L lens 70-200 2.8IS is on the way to Irvine for electrical problems.

 

[jitteringjr]

What if I am in a very good position to buy both? Is it a good idea to have both the 17-55 and 24-70 for my 550D?

wolv

If that is the case, then buy the 24-70 and a used 5D classic instead.

Download a program called exposure plot and see where your shot distribution runs. If you have a lot of activity at 17-24mm, then you don't want to go with a 24-XX lens. If you find yourself going beyond the 55mm a lot, then the 15-85 paired with some fast primes and or a speedlight flash may be the way to go instead. Honestly the 24-70 doesn't buy you enough reach to be worth giving up IS or the wide end IMHO if you stay on a crop camera. Buying a 5D classic would give you much wider FOV with the 24-70 and then be worth it.

I can tell you for me 2.8 is no where near fast enough indoors with out flash so if you think you are going to get a 2.8 zoom to use indoors without flash, then you should change your game plan to include F2 or faster primes and/or a speedlight flash. Your freind going to primes may be because of this too

 

[wolv]

Hi Everyone.

Sorry for responding more than a week later. I was out trying out both lenses after all your posts. Thank you for all your posts they really helped.

I love the wide end of the 17-55. I also like the extra reach of the 24-70.

Cutting the story short, I ended up with the L lens because of default. My friend kept his 17-55 for his wife. The 24-70 is not bad though even for my crop.

I still had a very good deal for the 24-70, a very good deal indeed. I wouldn't say it as "not a bad deal". I would say it a "good deal". Got it for a lot lower than the used price in any website.

In the beginning of this thread i said I was capable of purchasing both the 17-55 and the 24-70.

I now have some money left to buy another lens. I am considering a longer zoom for bird/animal photography.
Here are the lenses I am contemplating on:
Canon EF 70-300 IS
Tamron 70-300 VC
Sigma 70-300 OS

Which would you recommend?

Thanks.

wolv

 

[Andrew_WOT]

You chose wisely.

I owned Canon 70-300L IS for a week and replaced it with 70-200 IS F2.8 MK II. Sharper, non extending barrel design, faster F2.8, and ability to go as high as 400mm with 2x MK III, with 1.4x II it's still F4 when 70-300 is F5.6 and image quality is the same if not better. I know that sooner or later the limitations of 70-300 would start bother me. The only advantage 70-300 had was smaller height when contracted, that's it, even if you look at the price 70-300 vs tripod collar that comes included with 70-200 is pretty much price of the latter.

Hi Everyone.

Sorry for responding more than a week later. I was out trying out both lenses after all your posts. Thank you for all your posts they really helped.

I love the wide end of the 17-55. I also like the extra reach of the 24-70.

Cutting the story short, I ended up with the L lens because of default. My friend kept his 17-55 for his wife. The 24-70 is not bad though even for my crop.

I still had a very good deal for the 24-70, a very good deal indeed. I wouldn't say it as "not a bad deal". I would say it a "good deal". Got it for a lot lower than the used price in any website.

In the beginning of this thread i said I was capable of purchasing both the 17-55 and the 24-70.

I now have some money left to buy another lens. I am considering a longer zoom for bird/animal photography.
Here are the lenses I am contemplating on:
Canon EF 70-300 IS
Tamron 70-300 VC
Sigma 70-300 OS

Which would you recommend?

Thanks.

wolv

 

[jitteringjr]

He asked about three sub $500 lenses and you go on about a $1600 lens and a $2500 lens. See any issues with that?

To the op, I would go with the Tamron of those three.

 

[wolv]

Thanks.

He asked about three sub $500 lenses and you go on about a $1600 lens and a $2500 lens. See any issues with that?

To the op, I would go with the Tamron of those three.