Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L or Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS?

Looking for an all purpose lens to leave on my Canon Digital Rebel XTi and

having a difficult time deciding between the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L or

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS. I am most interested mostly in landscape and

night photography and occasionally indoor. All the reviews that I've read for

both lenses seem to be very positive and I am having a terrible time deciding

which lens to purchase. Any advice or reasons for or against either lens would

be greatly appreciated, thanks.

Well, the two lenses are for all practical purposes optically as good as each other, and both are 2.8.

 

The 17-55 is smaller, lighter, more than $100 cheaper, has IS, and has a much more useful focal range on a 1.6 crop camera.

 

The 24-70, on the other hand, has the "L" designation, although few reviewers have complained about the build quality of the 17-55 non-L (Canon has never bestowed the "L" designation on an EF-"S" lens).

 

Looks like a no-brainer to me: the 17-55.

I really liked the 24-70 f2.8 when I used film cameras but found the effective field of view (equivalent to 38-120mm) on a 1.6 crop camera inconvenient - its not wide enough as a general purpose walkabout lens / landscape lens. I would, however, quite like to have one again for my 5D but instead use the 24-120mm f4 IS - as I find the IS more than compensates for the loss of one stop. [And I use a fast prime when I need really shallow DoF]

<p>

So on a crop camera such as the XTi I would go for the 17-55mm which gives you an effective 28-88mm lens (on FF/Film) - a useful range and gives you IS.

I found my 24-70 on my 20D (1.6x) was perfect - now I'm shooting on a 1.3x camera I miss the extra reach. For me, something that stopped at 55 would be even worse ... yuck!

The 24-70 and 24-105 are really meant for FF bodies. The 17-55 would make the most sense on your XTi. Especially for landscape, you'd need the wider view (24=approx 38 on 1.6 body)while (17=27)

the simplest way to answer this is to decide if you see yourself staying in the xti/xxd market or moving to a full frame...

if the former then the efs lens is clear choice...

They are both fine lenses on this camera, but most people would find the 17-55 focal

length range to be much more appropriate for a full-time on-camera lens for your

purposes on a crop body.

 

24mm is barely wide angle at all, being close to the equivalent of a 40mm lens on full

frame/35mm.

 

By the way, I wouldn't agree with the idea that the longer lenses are "meant for full frame

bodies." It is true that they will work on FF and the EFS lenses will not, but they work just

fine on crop sensor bodies as long as you want the focal range the provide. I used to use

the 17-40, 24-105, and 70-200 lenses on a crop body and they worked just fine.

 

It is just that in your particular case and for the use you describe the 17-55 EFS lens

would seem to provide the best combination of focal length range, aperture, IS, etc.

 

Dan

>>> Looking for an all purpose lens to leave on my Canon Digital Rebel XTi <<<

 

and

 

>>> I am most interested mostly in landscape and night photography and occasionally indoor. <<<

 

Given these are the criteria, and there are only the two lenses in the equation, the answer is simple:

 

It is the 17 to 55.

 

Rationale: for landscapes and indoor work one can most always move closer or crop, but if you have 24mm FL as a limit one cannot get wider easily, without a lot of walking, or knocking out a wall.

 

Outside of the question:

 

I, however would not buy the 17 to 55, because it is and EF-S lens and I want a fully interchangeable lens system between APS-C and 135 digital formats AND neither lens is fast enough for indoor photography, IMO (assuming abient light). These factors might not concern you, and mentioned in case they have not been considered.

 

WW

"Neither lens is fast enough for indoor photography, IMO (assuming abient light)."

 

I respectfully disagree with this statement, because no Canon lens in Mike's price range is more than two stops faster (that would be the 50/1.4), and the IS buys him more than two stops of shutter speed. Granted, IS won't stop fast action, but unless he's talking sports (and he's not), most indoor photography is not "fast action" (and it's hard to get that action in focus anyway when shooting with the super-shallow d.o.f. of a prime at f/1.4 or f2.

 

If I had to make a choice for indoor (ambient light) photography between a 2.8 zoom with IS and a prime without IS, I would choose the zoom with IS. As always, others' mileage may vary.

>>> I respectfully disagree with this statement, {. . . }

 

Yes, your points are well taken especially apropos the direct comparison with the EF-S 17 to 55 and the 50mm F1.4.

 

However some counter points to note are: whilst fast (sports) action does not occur inside often, it does occur indoors, and some sports action that does occur indoor happens where flash is not allowed, swimming, basketball and gymnastics are some examples.

 

Such, however, was not the scenario I believe the OP had in mind when he mentioned `indoor`: nor the point you are raising, nor in fact the point I was originally making, but you made me think of it now, so it is worth a mention.

 

The `indoor` I actually had in mind was a small child / children: hands and feet, especially hands when capturing candid portraits. The shallow Depth of Field can usually be managed, it is the hand that require freezing. f/2 @ 1/125 is better than f/2.8 @ 1/60 in this regard.

 

Others` mileage does vary, and we each draw on what we have done, and what we are interested in, I think.

 

If I had to make a choice for indoor (ambient light) photography between a 2.8 zoom with IS and a prime without IS, I would choose three fast primes.

 

:)

 

Cheers,

 

WW

Between the two lenses you list, for use on an XTi, I would choose the 17-55. (And I did choose it.) It works out to the same as a 27-88 lens would on a full frame body, and that has long been considered a good range for most photographers. However if you consistently favor the longer end of a normal zoom and seldom use the wide end (like Colin Southern above) you would probably like the 24-70 better. It's just a personal choice. Either way you are likely to want another lens or two, wider or longer, to go along with it.

24 mm is not wide enough for landscape photography with the xti. You may find that even 17 mm is not nearly wide enough for you. For landscape I recommend Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20. If you have one of these then a 24-70 for people/detail shots could make sense - it would give you 70/2.8 which is really nice for shallow dof. This would be a two-lens system rather than one, though. Depends what you want to do.

Here we go again, pigeonholing the 24-70. There's nothing wrong with the focal length on a crop camera--it all depends on your use & preferences. I find it a perfectly good walkaround, landscape, and low-light lens.

 

I have no experience with the 17-55 so won't comment on it. I do have the 24-70 and it fills the tasks outlined quite well. In combination with a Tokina 12-24 for really wide shots and a 70-200 for longer needs it makes an integral part of a very nice lens kit.

>> Looking for an all purpose lens to leave on my Canon Digital Rebel XTi

 

IMHO the 17-55/2.8 IS is the best lens for this.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

William W Wrote: "Rationale: for landscapes and indoor work one can most always move closer or crop, but if you have 24mm FL as a limit one cannot get wider easily, without a lot of walking, or knocking out a wall."

 

Unless one simply flips the camera vertical - fires off a few overlapping shots - and stitches them together ...

 

Here's 13 joined together - taken at 80mm on a 1.6x camera!

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6194139

 

On the otherhand if you don't have enough reach you MIGHT be able to zoom forward with your feet - or you might not.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

Well everyone else has given their opinion so here I go. 24mm is plenty wide enough for me for my general photogrphy (on the 30D). I admit I plan to buy a wider lens but not right away.

 

Jason

17-55 is the way to go if you plan to keep this lens on your camera all the time. As it has already been said, it is a personal choice. Having being in the dilemma you are going through I decided to go with 10-22 and 24-70. BTW I feel that 24-70 is too heavy to be a walk around lens. I like it for its image quality and hope to use it on FF camera but certainly would not recommend it as a walk around lens. Just my personal choice but I find 50mm f/1.4 to be a perfect walk around lens on my 30D.

I agree with Saurabh that the 24-70 is a heavy walk-around lens on my 30D; but it is a fine

lens and I bought it with the expectation of upgrading to FF some day. I do miss the wide

end, I used a 24mm exclusively on my SLR for years, and plan to get the 10-22 to fill that

void.

>>> Unless one simply flips the camera vertical [ . . . ] and stitches them together <<< (CS)

 

Point taken: but then by that rationale we all get a prime standard and post produce everything: this was not regarding the sentiment of the question posted, but rather a point of issue somewhat pedantic and taken far from the central point, I think, and as that only, I note and agree.

 

If tongue in cheek I understand, if serious comment, I do not think it adds to the argument.

 

WW

>>> On the (other hand) (sp) if you don't have enough reach you MIGHT be able to zoom forward with your feet - or you might not. <<< (CS)

 

 

If noted my post fully; the quote was:

 

`Rationale: for landscapes and indoor work one can MOST ALWAYS move closer OR CROP` (Caps for emphasis)

 

Thus my statement was not exclusive nor conclusive, rather sustaining a choice upon the most common scenario likely to prevail.

 

Misquoting is common by politicians: but omissions amongst professional colleagues are disappointing.

 

WW

I have a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 on my 30D. In fact, it's the only lens I have. I can't say anything

bad about it. Terrific in low-light situations with the IS. It's a true all-purpose lens for the

1.6x sensor.

 

It's true that the build quality is a little less sturdy then the L series, but that's a moot point

for me as I do not shoot professionally.

William,

 

I apologize if I've upset you, as that was never my intention. However - checking back, I do feel that I fully quoted you around the portion that I wanted to comment on.

 

I appreciate that what you've written is not stated as being conclusive or exclusive - and I was at no point trying to imply that it was. I did however feel you implied that there was no easy way to get wider with a 24-70, whilst at the same time suggesting that any issues due to lack of reach could most often be easily overcome. I respect that that's how you've found it to be - however my experiance has been the exact opposite - hence I hope you can understand the need I felt to offer some "counter-balance" to your post.

 

I feel that there is a VERY easy way to get wider. And no, it's not offered "tongue-in-cheek" - I have many canvas landscapes hanging in my gallery that were shot with a 24-70 from a 20D. If one ALWAYS needed more width then, of course, something wider would be sensible - however for me, landscape usually equates to "no time pressure" - and it really doesn't take much effort to mount the camera vertically on a nodal bar and shoot a few overlapping shots - stitching together afterwards involves only a small portion of the post-procesing overhead.

 

We are none-the-less talking about a zoom lens though - my experiences shooting the types of things that the OP desires to shoot is that more often than not the problems occur at the long end of the zoom range. Often I find my self framing the shot - zooming all the way in - and then thinking "darn - not enough reach". As you mentioned, zooming with your feet is often an option - and my response is that often it's not as well - often it's the difference between shooting from the side of the highway, or having to stand in the middle of the highway - or shooting from the bench -v- having to move onto the playing court, or perhaps having to "walk up to the lion" instead of shooting from my car window. As such I feel that it is very much central & relevant to the argument. For me it's simply a case of seeming to need reach far more than I ever need width.

 

We're all here to help the OP decide - if my comments are discounted by him because they're not relevant to his situation then that's fine by me - if on the otherhand it gives him one more reason towards avoiding a costly mistake then my job is done well.

 

Again, I apologize that I've upset you somewhere in my sincere attempts to do this.

>>> I did however feel you implied that there was no easy way to get wider with a 24-70, whilst at the same time suggesting that any issues due to lack of reach could most often be easily overcome. <<<

 

Colin:

 

Yes. You are correct.

 

I was wrong and my last post was both unnecessary in content and most inappropriate in manner.

 

Kindly disregard my previous. I wrote in haste, without clarity and objectivity, clouded from my day`s work, and still carrying the baggage I had accumulated.

 

It was I who conducted myself in an unprofessional manner and it is I who owe you the apology: here given.

 

WW

Thanks William,

 

We won't always agree on things photographic, but I'm sure to learn from your high eithical standards.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin