EFS 17-55 2.8 IS or 24-70 2.8L for weddings and portraits?

EFS 17-55 2.8 IS or 24-70 2.8L? Just wondering which of these

great lenses would be better for weddings, portraits, and general

walk around. The new lens will go on my 30D 1.6 crop camera. Yet

only the 24-70L will work on my Elan7n 35mm cam, which I only use

for landscape. Any advice would be GREAT! Thank you........Jay

What do you mean it will only work on Elan7? do you mean to maintain the focal length? or do you mean mechanically? It will work mechanically.

Well, do you want an image stabilised lens that will only work on your 30D? Or a non image

stabilised lens that will work on either?

This is the dilemma the manufacturers have put people in ... making it our problem

instead of theirs. EFS "digital" lenses to make up for the crop factor robbing you of wide

angle focal lengths.

 

That 24-70/2.8L becomes an expensive 38 -112/2.8 zoom, which is shy of being wide

enough for diversified wedding work.

 

The 17-55/2.8 only works on select Canon cameras, and it also becomes an expensive

28-88/2.8 zoom that is just barely wide enough, but lacking at the long end if you are

stuck shooting from the rear of the church as is often the case.

 

IMO, all Canon digital cameras will use full frame sensors in a few years, and the EFS

lenses will only be usable on passe' crop frame cameras no longer in production ... which

the manufacturers absolutely love. Planned obsolescence.

 

I'd say if you want zooms, get the 24-70/2.8L and realize there is no perfect answer.

You'll eventually need something wider and something longer to shoot weddings. That

can be accomplished with other zooms like the 16-35/2.8L and 70-200/2.8L IS.

 

A possible stop gap would be to consider the 24-105/4L IS (38-168mm on the 30D).

A bit slower aperture, but at least it is an IS lens of "L" built quality and optical

performance. And when zoomed out to the 105 end it's 50mm longer than the 24-70 ...

as well as a lot smaller and easier to carry. It will work on your other camera also... as well

as any future digital camera you may buy.

 

Just a thought.

"This is the dilemma the manufacturers have put people in ... making it our problem instead of theirs. EFS "digital" lenses to make up for the crop factor robbing you of wide angle focal lengths."

snip

"IMO, all Canon digital cameras will use full frame sensors in a few years, and the EFS lenses will only be usable on passe' crop frame cameras no longer in production ... which the manufacturers absolutely love. Planned obsolescence."

 

Yeah, this is all a scheme. It has absolutely nothing to do with the realities of sensor fabrication which at this time make affordable FF DSLR's for the masses an impossibility. Those pesky manufacturers pushing their problems on us.

 

While we're at it, they just love to give us zooms with limited focal lengths and apertures. Where's my 14-600mm f/1.0L IS USM??? Why do they push their problems designing glass on me???

 

:-/

>This is the dilemma the manufacturers have put people in ... making it our problem instead

of theirs. EFS "digital" lenses to make up for the crop factor robbing you of wide angle focal

lengths.

 

This sort of conspiracy theorising is naive. Making full-size digital image sensors is complex

and expensive. Camera makers aren't making subframe sensors just because they feel like it.

Given the fact that basically Canon are the only makers of full-frame 35mm equivalent digital

cameras might give you some clue here.

We'll see who's right in just a few years. Besides, I don't think a post inquiring about

wedding optics is in the category of "for the masses".

 

Canon could have easily produced a full frame digital 20D replacement for $2,000. or so.

But that would've undermined the 5D marketing opportunity. They are in it for the money

you know. So we'll have to wait awhile. The 5D is already down to $2,800. Tick-Tock.

 

NK Guy: Sensor manufacture has less to do with the offerings from other Camera makers

than does their lens mount which was/is to small. The Contax ND had a full frame sensor

4 years ago mainly because their N mount was big enough to use the then current full

frame sensor technology. It was the rest of the electronics and software that sunk that

camera, not the sensor or their mount.

 

As to costs: Like anything electronic, the cost drops like a stone as production is ramped

up and manufacturing techniques improve. How many examples need we experience

before that lesson is learned?

 

Lenses: Exaggerations don't help the discussion. No one was asking for a 14-600 f/1.0

lens. There are things like the now ancient Zeiss 35-135/3.5 with excellent macro ability

and a wide end that didn't distort for example.

 

The problem I am referring to is a $1,200 lens you have to buy for your cropped frame

camera to get a decent wide angle, that you can only use on that camera ... in a catagory

of camera that has already proven itself as still under development with new, more capable

models every 1 to 2 years.

I also have been thinking about this lens dillemma - not so much in practical terms but more in my daydreams. I currently have a canon film camera and 24-70 2.8 and have been theoretizing about moving to digital. Up till now my thinking has always been in favour of 5d, because only with that camera (not counting the more expensive Ds) I could continue to use my 24-70 and still get a "normal" range zoom with a fast (in zoom terms) aperture. There was nothing in the "normal" zoom range with a "fast" aperture for the crop cameras yet. My theoretical purchase was a nobrainer (albeit a very expensive one) so far - 5d. This has changed quite a bit with EFS 17-55 2.8 IS - all of a sudden the crop camera becomes a nicer proposition - with 2.8 you have reasonable control over depth of field in the normal range of zoom lens. Plus, you have the additional benefit of IS. For something similar on my theoretical 5d I would need to get the 24-105 4 IS, leaving my optically superior 24-70 somewhat redundant.

 

More to the point of Jay D. original question. If I already owned or would be set on the 30D, then I would lean more in favour of EFS 17-55 2.8 IS (provided I could wait while it became available and provided the lens turned out to be any good at all :-) Why?

 

- I get "normal" zoom lens with relatively fast aperture on my crop camera.

 

- I get the additional benefit of IS in the normal zoom range - not so important if I always shoot with flash. But if my style involves available light PJ wedding coverage, this functionality can be fantastic.

 

- If I were worried about redundancy, I would not get 30D in the first place.

 

- Also, depending on how much wedding work I do and how much I charge, redundancy may or may not be an issue for me at all. What I mean, 1200 USd for lens is a lot of money, but also not such a lot of money for a wedding pro who charges a much or more for one session. If these are the right tools for your pro work, then get them.

 

Of course, the above reasoning does not take into consideration your wish to keep Elan 7n for film based work. You just cannot get I quote "great lenses for weddings, portraits, and general walk around" that would be equally "great" for full frame and crop camera. You decide which one is more important for you.

 

Two final remarks:

 

- I wonder why it took so long for canon to produce a fixed aperture normal zoom for their crop cameras. This should have been one of the first lens produced. My theory - this could have hurt their 1Ds and 1D sales as many users could have decided that crop camera with a normal zoom lens are sufficient for their work (in other words there must have been a pro segment who bought 1ds not because of inherent FF advantages but simply because only with FF their normal fixed aperture high quality zoom would stay "normal").

 

- I wonder when we will see the 24-70 2,8 IS. It seems like a logical next step sooner or later, does it not?

Thanks for the advice guys

Well--if you aren't a "zoom only" guy, I like my set up, which can work with both crop and full frame cameras. I have a 20D, a 16-35mm zoom, a 50mm 1.4, an 85mm 1.8, and a 135mm 2.8. My back up camera is still my film based EOS 3, so an EFS lens would do me no good. For wedding work, I think a wide zoom is more usable for spaces where you just can't back up enough. Doesn't answer your question re one walk around lens, but as a kit for weddings and portraits, I think it works great.

<i>"IMO, all Canon digital cameras will use full frame sensors in a few years..."</i><p>

That will never happen, unless you mean 10+ years from now, so it doesn't matter. Canon will always offer two product lines -- FF sensors and the 1.6 crop line. The 1.6's are direct competitors to Nikon; Canon's FF sensor DSLRs have zero competition, they are in a class all their own.

<p>

EF-S lenses and 1.6 crop camera combos will always be available for the budget minded shooter who still desires superb quaility (but some of the EF-S lenses are crappy and I have never in my life recommended an EF-S lens).

 

So, all in all, buy the 24-70L and ignore the EF-S.

Like I said, we'll see. Every time someone says "never" concerning technology ... surprise!

 

Again, consumer masses aren't the issue. Wedding photographers and their needs are the

subject. But I'll play along ...

 

Here's a speculative "masses" scenario: Sony furthers their technology on prosumer

cameras like the DCS- R1 in the next 2-3 years ... using better and better dust sealed

Zeiss zoom optics, anti-shake 16 meg APS sized sensors, and provides ISOs to 6400. If

you think Canon has money, look at Sony ... who swallowed Minolta's digital R&D whole ...

some of which is pretty innovative.

 

The new 2008 model 16 meg., anti shake, self cleaning sensor Sony DCS-R2 with Zeiss 8X

f/2.8 T* zoom is priced to compete with Canon's latest 1.6X crop 16 meg D-Rebel MKII.

 

Now what's Mother Canon to do?

 

Full frame to the rescue.

 

It's their ace in the hole.

 

Canon will not care if you get stuck with obsolete lenses. Unlike Nikon, they didn't care

when they ditched the FD mount and left their customers "holding the bag" of lenses. They

did what was right for their future ... and they'll do it again if needed. History DOES repeat

itself.

 

Tick-tock. Never say never.

I think you need to wait and see the optical quality of the 17-55. IS and f/2.8 are great

together, but only if the image quality is up to snuff.

 

...And is there a reason why you aren't considering the 24-105?

 

Never say never, but I think EF-S will be around longer than 10 years...

You need to think "out of the box"! I am not saying what I did is for everyone. But, for the price of an "L" zoom + a few more dollars, you could have a 20D body and a fast prime. That way you can have the bonus of a back-up body, and your lenses stay mounted more of the time(less sensor dust!).

 

John