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

I'm a newbie here, so bear with me...

I'm an amateur photographer, but I want to improve the image quality of my photos.  To that end, in February, I upgraded my old digital Rebel XTi to the 60D.  I am still using my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 with the 60D body, and getting decent pictures.  (I also have a basic Canon 75-300, and a Canon 50mm macro lens)

But I'm ready to upgrade my workhorse lens.  I just feel that my pictures aren't as sharp and life-like as they should be--especially anything close up.  The Tamron seems to do well enough with landscapes, but seems to lack on indoor day to day family shots, and close-ups.

I shoot mostly landscapes, kids sports, and many family pictures--posed and candid.  I am starting to learn how to use my 60D to it's fullest by finally getting away from shooting auto, and playing more with f-stops and adjusting for exposure etc.

So, my dilemma is this, do I just replace my Tamron with the equivalent Canon lens?  Or do I really, really upgrade to the 24-70 L lens?

Does an L lens really make a difference with image quality?  Does the Canon 60D do justice to the 24-70 lens? (I'm not sure I understand crop-sensor vs. full frame cameras).

So, I'm hunting for opinions....

buckeyevet wrote:

I'm a newbie here, so bear with me...

I'm an amateur photographer, but I want to improve the image quality of my photos.  To that end, in February, I upgraded my old digital Rebel XTi to the 60D.  I am still using my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 with the 60D body, and getting decent pictures.  (I also have a basic Canon 75-300, and a Canon 50mm macro lens)

So, my dilemma is this, do I just replace my Tamron with the equivalent Canon lens?  Or do I really, really upgrade to the 24-70 L lens?

Does an L lens really make a difference with image quality?  Does the Canon 60D do justice to the 24-70 lens? (I'm not sure I understand crop-sensor vs. full frame cameras).

So, I'm hunting for opinions....

Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS is a great lens, as is the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS, VERY sharp and both are much cheaper than the 24-70 f2.8 plus have stabilizers.  The aps-c vs 35mm format issue is that the crop sensor only uses a portion of the projected image circle, so there is a 1.6x field of view to take into account.  Usually people talk about these things in terms of 35mm equivalent.

So here's some math...

The 24-70 on the 60D will give you the field of view (FOV) of a 38.4-68.4mm lens on a 5D

The 17-55 on the 60D will give you the FOV of a 27.2-88mm lens on a 5D

So you can see that if 24-70 on 35mm is a "standard zoom" then the 17-55 on APS-C will give you roughly similar ranges.

In terms of image quality, all 3 of these lenses are likely to perform very well, I've used the Canon 17-55 and the Sigma 17-50 together, and there's not much between them.  Sigma is sharper in the center, the Canon in the corners wide open, from f4 onwards it's a non-issue.  The build quality is where you are likely to notice the biggest difference.  The L will be the best build including weather seals, then the Sigma and the Canon 17-55 in last place, quite plastic and rather large.

Crop sensors with their higher pixel density are quite demanding on optics, I think you ask your question a little backwards, rather than wondering if the 60D will do the lens justice, will the lens perform well on the 60D??  The new 24-70 f2.8 II is very well regarded for a 35mm standard zoom. It's my opinion that any one of these lenses will give you excellent photographs, it's up to you how much money you want to spend.

btw, the 75-300 is probably Canon's worst lens, so once you get one of these lenses don't be surprised if you become somewhat disenchanted with that lens, it's nothing personal here, I had one too.  

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

buckeyevet wrote:

I'm a newbie here, so bear with me...

I'm an amateur photographer, but I want to improve the image quality of my photos.  To that end, in February, I upgraded my old digital Rebel XTi to the 60D.  I am still using my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 with the 60D body, and getting decent pictures.  (I also have a basic Canon 75-300, and a Canon 50mm macro lens)

So, my dilemma is this, do I just replace my Tamron with the equivalent Canon lens?  Or do I really, really upgrade to the 24-70 L lens?

Does an L lens really make a difference with image quality?  Does the Canon 60D do justice to the 24-70 lens? (I'm not sure I understand crop-sensor vs. full frame cameras).

So, I'm hunting for opinions....

Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS is a great lens, as is the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS, VERY sharp and both are much cheaper than the 24-70 f2.8 plus have stabilizers.  The aps-c vs 35mm format issue is that the crop sensor only uses a portion of the projected image circle, so there is a 1.6x field of view to take into account.  Usually people talk about these things in terms of 35mm equivalent.

So here's some math...

The 24-70 on the 60D will give you the field of view (FOV) of a 38.4-68.4mm lens on a 5D

Late night there Keith?  Back to the OP, that should read 38.4-112.

The 17-55 on the 60D will give you the FOV of a 27.2-88mm lens on a 5D

So you can see that if 24-70 on 35mm is a "standard zoom" then the 17-55 on APS-C will give you roughly similar ranges.

In terms of image quality, all 3 of these lenses are likely to perform very well, I've used the Canon 17-55 and the Sigma 17-50 together, and there's not much between them.  Sigma is sharper in the center, the Canon in the corners wide open, from f4 onwards it's a non-issue.  The build quality is where you are likely to notice the biggest difference.  The L will be the best build including weather seals, then the Sigma and the Canon 17-55 in last place, quite plastic and rather large.

Crop sensors with their higher pixel density are quite demanding on optics, I think you ask your question a little backwards, rather than wondering if the 60D will do the lens justice, will the lens perform well on the 60D??  The new 24-70 f2.8 II is very well regarded for a 35mm standard zoom. It's my opinion that any one of these lenses will give you excellent photographs, it's up to you how much money you want to spend.

btw, the 75-300 is probably Canon's worst lens, so once you get one of these lenses don't be surprised if you become somewhat disenchanted with that lens, it's nothing personal here, I had one too.  

Assuming you have the non VC version of the Tamron, it is a pretty good lens in the IQ department.  The Canon 17-55 will only be a touch sharper throughout the frame.  The Sigma 17-50 will be sharper in the center but slightly softer at the corners.  The 24-70/2.8 is probably overall softer.  The new 24-70/2.8 II you will notice sharper images, but not as much as your wallet's weight would drop in buying it.

The reason to upgrade the Tammy is going to be for stabilization, faster and quieter focusing, or better build.

On the other hand, anything you replace the 75-300 with will give you noticeable IQ improvement.  Even the 55-250 will be a jump in IQ. Here are some ideas for replacing that keeping in the same budget as the 17-55 or less:

Tamron 70-300 VC, 70-200/4 non IS or the IS version, the 135/2 L, the 200/2.8 L, Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS, and the Sigma 50-150/2.8 OS.

If you want to keep to the standard focal lengths, maybe add a nice prime or two.  The Sigma 35/1.4 and the Canon 35/2 IS are both excellent standard primes for crop.  There is also the Sigma 30/1.4.  I have the older version, but there is a slightly improved Art version now.

jitteringjr wrote:

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

So here's some math...

The 24-70 on the 60D will give you the field of view (FOV) of a 38.4-68.4mm lens on a 5D

Late night there Keith?  Back to the OP, that should read 38.4-112.

Ha!  Yeah, what happened there?!?  And yeah, late night here, for the 10th in a row or so, crunch time.    Thanks for the fix here.

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).

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

 

Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS is a great lens, as is the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS, VERY sharp and both are much cheaper than the 24-70 f2.8 plus have stabilizers.  The aps-c vs 35mm format issue is that the crop sensor only uses a portion of the projected image circle, so there is a 1.6x field of view to take into account.  Usually people talk about these things in terms of 35mm equivalent.

So here's some math...

The 24-70 on the 60D will give you the field of view (FOV) of a 38.4-68.4mm lens on a 5D

The 17-55 on the 60D will give you the FOV of a 27.2-88mm lens on a 5D

So you can see that if 24-70 on 35mm is a "standard zoom" then the 17-55 on APS-C will give you roughly similar ranges.

In terms of image quality, all 3 of these lenses are likely to perform very well, I've used the Canon 17-55 and the Sigma 17-50 together, and there's not much between them.  Sigma is sharper in the center, the Canon in the corners wide open, from f4 onwards it's a non-issue.  The build quality is where you are likely to notice the biggest difference.  The L will be the best build including weather seals, then the Sigma and the Canon 17-55 in last place, quite plastic and rather large.

Crop sensors with their higher pixel density are quite demanding on optics, I think you ask your question a little backwards, rather than wondering if the 60D will do the lens justice, will the lens perform well on the 60D??  The new 24-70 f2.8 II is very well regarded for a 35mm standard zoom. It's my opinion that any one of these lenses will give you excellent photographs, it's up to you how much money you want to spend.

btw, the 75-300 is probably Canon's worst lens, so once you get one of these lenses don't be surprised if you become somewhat disenchanted with that lens, it's nothing personal here, I had one too.  

It's interesting that you say that I should be thinking about how the lens will perform on the 60D, because I was very happy with my Tamron lens on my Digital Rebel, but it has been a little disappointing on the 60D.  But I wonder if that is because I am expecting so much more since I did upgrade the body!

In your opinion, will I improve the image quality I get by replacing the Tamron with either the Sigma or Canon?  Or am I better suited to just upgrade my 75-300 lens?

I will admit that the Tamron lens is a bit slow with the autofocus...

jitteringjr wrote:

Assuming you have the non VC version of the Tamron, it is a pretty good lens in the IQ department.  The Canon 17-55 will only be a touch sharper throughout the frame.  The Sigma 17-50 will be sharper in the center but slightly softer at the corners.  The 24-70/2.8 is probably overall softer.  The new 24-70/2.8 II you will notice sharper images, but not as much as your wallet's weight would drop in buying it.

The reason to upgrade the Tammy is going to be for stabilization, faster and quieter focusing, or better build.

On the other hand, anything you replace the 75-300 with will give you noticeable IQ improvement.  Even the 55-250 will be a jump in IQ. Here are some ideas for replacing that keeping in the same budget as the 17-55 or less:

Tamron 70-300 VC, 70-200/4 non IS or the IS version, the 135/2 L, the 200/2.8 L, Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS, and the Sigma 50-150/2.8 OS.

If you want to keep to the standard focal lengths, maybe add a nice prime or two.  The Sigma 35/1.4 and the Canon 35/2 IS are both excellent standard primes for crop.  There is also the Sigma 30/1.4.  I have the older version, but there is a slightly improved Art version now.

Great advice jitteringjr!

Thank you for the honesty!

I do have the non VC version of the Tamron, and my biggest beef with it is the slow focus, and it seems to have lower image quality with indoor flash shots and cloudy days.  But that may also have been because I was shooting on full auto or P with just white balance and iso adjusted?  Maybe I'm imagining that it doesn't seem to do as much justice to the 60D body.

I have never owned a prime lens, so bear with me.  What is the advantage of a prime lens over a zoom?  Is image quality better?  With all of this advice, it's getting me thinking that I should focus my attention on replacing my 75-300, and not the Tamron?

Thanks!

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?

If you were happy with it on your Rebel, then you may have AF calibration issues with your 60D.  Since you don't have MFA on that, you can test the lens out by putting it on a tripod and then take shots using both through the lens focusing and then another in live view.  If your live view image is significantly sharper, you need to get the lens calibrated to your body.

It's a familiar story, I had the same experience when I went from my XTi to my 7D, 18mp is more demanding than 10mp.    I was using the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 ex dc macro and it was great on the XTi and just ok on the 7D.  I occasionally shoot short films, so I rented some lenses for a shoot and decided on the newer Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS which is MUCH sharper.

The Canon 17-55 f2.8 was very sharp as well.  Both were significantly better than my previous lens.  In fact the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS was the best lens I had for my 7D, better than the Sigma 50 f1.4 and Canon 70-200 f4 L.  Sharp and versatile, good bokeh, good build quality.

I have not tried the 15-85 but it gets a lot of respect here on the forums as well.  From photozone's tests the Sigma 17-50 slightly sharper at equivalent apertures, and is faster of course, but has significantly less range.

EDIT:  One more thing, when I sold my 17-50 to a friend he said "this is the single best camera related thing I've ever bought".  Maybe overstated, but it's a very good lens.

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.

dougeryb wrote:

The Tamron is an excellent lens.  The VC even makes it more compelling compared to the Canon 24-70IS ii.

I agree; the Tamron is an excellent lens and I love the VC.

I went with the 24-70/2.8L mk II because I happen to have the extra $1000 at the time and the local camera store had just one copy left in inventory...  It was an impulse buy.  The mk II performed so well, I don't regret the purchase.  Also it was around the time that the story about inner elements coming loose with early production runs of the Tamron was reported on lensrental.com.  Of course, no one has heard any complaints about that issue since then so I'm sure Tamron took care of that manufacturing issue.

I think buying the Tamron VC and then reaching a bit for a 6D to go with it makes a lot more sense than buying a 24-70/2.8L II.

The only thing I don't know personally about the Tamron is how good is its weather seals.  I got caught in heavy rain with the 24-70 mk I; the mk I held up really well --- my 5D3 didn't and had to be sent to Canon to get the main circuit board replaced.  I now have various rain covers in all of my camera bags and will not submit any of my gear to that kind of rain in the future, but, I do wonder how well the Tamron would hold up.

jitteringjr wrote:

If you were happy with it on your Rebel, then you may have AF calibration issues with your 60D.  Since you don't have MFA on that, you can test the lens out by putting it on a tripod and then take shots using both through the lens focusing and then another in live view.  If your live view image is significantly sharper, you need to get the lens calibrated to your body.

I will try that out and see what I get.

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

It's a familiar story, I had the same experience when I went from my XTi to my 7D, 18mp is more demanding than 10mp.    I was using the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 ex dc macro and it was great on the XTi and just ok on the 7D.  I occasionally shoot short films, so I rented some lenses for a shoot and decided on the newer Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS which is MUCH sharper.

The Canon 17-55 f2.8 was very sharp as well.  Both were significantly better than my previous lens.  In fact the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS was the best lens I had for my 7D, better than the Sigma 50 f1.4 and Canon 70-200 f4 L.  Sharp and versatile, good bokeh, good build quality.

I have not tried the 15-85 but it gets a lot of respect here on the forums as well.  From photozone's tests the Sigma 17-50 slightly sharper at equivalent apertures, and is faster of course, but has significantly less range.

EDIT:  One more thing, when I sold my 17-50 to a friend he said "this is the single best camera related thing I've ever bought".  Maybe overstated, but it's a very good lens.

So, when you sold your 17-50, what did you upgrade to?  Just curious.

I actually have the Canon 17-55 f2.8 and the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 coming for a 10 day rental.  I figure even though I won't be investing in the 24-70 based on this forum feedback, I might as well give it a try and see how it does.

Sort of like taking a (insert your favorite expensive car make here) out for a test drive when you know you can't afford to buy it!

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?

dougeryb wrote:

The Tamron is an excellent lens.  The VC even makes it more compelling compared to the Canon 24-70IS ii.

Here is a test shot I just took and uploaded for this thread.  I'm not a flower photographer so please forgive the composition

Shot with a 7d

dougeryb,

Thanks for uploading the picture!  I can't comment on the composition either, but the color and sharpness in the foreground are very nice.

I will have to think about renting that lens and see how it compares to shots that I take with the rented Canon 24-70 that's scheduled to arrive today.

Thanks for the advice!

Jennifer