jessica_s._leatherbury Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Any thoughts re: 24-70 2.8 vs. 17-55 2.8? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vlad khavin Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 I guess it would be good to know what you already have? Do you already have something that covers the 17-24 range? The 55-70 range? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3rdpwr Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 I'm in the same debate with myself. Just can't justify the canon price for either. May have to go 3rd party... -Mario Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3rdpwr Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Me having the 20D and 580EX Flashes. My story is that my 17-40L seems to be too short as I most use it at 40mm or close to. I have 50mm and 85mm primes, but I need a zoom. The kit lens doesn't do well wide open or close to and flares too much... -MArio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicola inglis Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 I use the 17-55 a lot. It is basically always on my camera and if I need to use anything else I use my second camera. I use it for weddings and for architecture photography and find myself using the full range of its zoom. My only bugbear is occassionally wanting to be able to go wider so for that reason I wouldn't go up to the 24-70. When we shoot a wedding we use the 17-55 on one camera and a 80-200 on the other. Just bought an 85 prime but have yet to use it at a wedding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djphoto Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 It's impossible to give a helpful answer to your question without knowing which camera you have and what other lenses you have. The 24-70, of course, gives a range of 24-70mm on a 5D. On a 10/20/30D it's effectively a 38-112mm lens. The 17-55 is effectively a 27-88mm lens on a 10/20/30D and won't work on the 5D at all. If you have a 5D, you have no choice -- the 24-70 is it. If you have a 1.6 crop camera, I think the 17-55 offers a much more useful range. In fact, most weddings could be photographed adequately with only that one lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3rdpwr Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 I'm not a pro, so I can't say. But I know when I shoot in a church and I take pic's for friends, I feel 40 is insufficient. Problem is I don't know how insufficient. If I had 2 bodies, I would simply use my 17-40L and put a 24-70/28-70 or similar lens. (Or prime on one and 24-70/70-200 on other. Sometimes I hate decisions... :) -Mario Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant g Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 I have and use both. The 17-55/2.8IS is a perfect single lens solution if you use a 1.6x crop camera. It's the lens that I wished Canon would make since a couple of years ago. On a full frame camera, the 24-70 is hard to beat, and I still like it on crop cameras too. However, on a crop camera, I feel it *needs* to be paired with something wider. I feel you can't go wrong with either choice, as neither should be your only lens when shooting weddings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_rubinstein___mancheste Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 What Grant said: 24mm on a crop camera isn't wide enough necessitating another lens. If you need the extra reach on your camera then pair the 17-55 with an 85mm 1.8 which is a lighter solution as well as being a great sharp and fast lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun_carter Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 i traded in my 24-70 for the 17-55 2.8 and love it. the 24-70 just wasn't wide enough for large group shots with my 20d. that's the only reason i got rid of it, image quality was great. the 17-55 2.8 and 85 1.8 make an awesome pair. this is what i use. i've had it for almost a month and have shot two wedding using it so far. you can check out the two weddings here: http://www.photoreflect.com/pr3/thumbpage.aspx?e=1992130 http://www.photoreflect.com/pr3/thumbpage.aspx?e=1978569 i'd say 75% of the images were taken with the 17-55 2.8 on my 20d and the rest with my 85 1.8 on the digital rebel xt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brians Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Only problem I see is that the 17-55 is an EF-S lens which works on select cameras only. For example if you were to move up to a 5D body then the 17-55 would no longer work...as someone mentioned however with a full frame body the 24-70 is the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wedding-photography-denver Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Hi Jessica. I have both and the 17-55 is hands down better in all aspects other than the build qulaity (which is quite good). Better distortion/contrast/color and equal sharpness. If you have the 20/30d or xt, that is a no brainer to me. I don't know if anyone else has both, but thats from someone who does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 If you put the 24-70 on a ID II N, with it's 1.3 crop factor, you have almost identical perpective range as a 17-55 on the 1.6 crop bodies. In both cases, it's a nice balance of about 1/3 below and 2/3 above the normal perspective. The author of The-Digital-Darkroom describes the 24-70 as a perfect match for the ID 11. I have a 24-70 with the 20D and am struggling with this issue. As a "normal" zoom, it's way too long on the 20D, a bit too wide on a 5D, and just right on the ID II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brians Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 I've given this more thought...if your like me and you have the 5D and 20D and trying to maintain a same perpective regardless of lens across both bodies then what you could do is slap the 1.4x tele on your 5D. This will get you close to the 1.6x so that perpective is close enough. The 1.4x tele has excellent optical quality and would get you close to same field of view and dare I say but result in a better quality print then the 20D with the same lens. Just my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conraderb Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 I used the 16-35 and the 24-70 before I got my 17-55. now it stays on my camera. other than the issue of build quality (not like the 24-70, IMHO), a fantastic lens in my experience thus far. the other camera now gets the 10-22, the 85mm 1.8 or the 70-200 IS. and hopefully the 85mm 1.2 someday...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_osullivan Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 I know this post is late but I'd like to clear up some miss informaiton for those still reading it. To Brian Spangler's comment, a 1.4 TC cannot be used on shuch short lenses. Nothing shorter than 70mm works. Nor do they work on any EF-S lenses. See the compatibility chart. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/220456-GREY/Canon_6845A004_1_4x_EF_Extender_II.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now