lucas_jarvis Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Does anyone know if these two have been officially tested against one another? Please send in links if you have them. The two would have to be compared at the equivalent focal lenths to one another, and then the 30D would have to be upsized to the same pixel count as the 5D. This way the 100% crops will look the same in size for direct comparison. A similar test was done a while back with the 10-22 on the 20D and the 17-40 on the 5D. www.prime-junta.net/pont/Reviews/090_5D_vs_20D_Wide_Angle/a_5D_vs_20D_Wide_Angle_Shootout.html (For some reason, photo.net won't allow the link to display properly. Take the space out after the dash, and also after 'shootout') The edge went to the 5D and the 17-40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve santikarn Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 has IS, while the 24-70 L lens doesn't. Should the test be done handheld or with tripod? For me the IS on the 17-55 lens is the deciding factor when I choose the lens for my 30D as I don't often travel with a tripod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucas_jarvis Posted July 13, 2006 Author Share Posted July 13, 2006 The test would obviously be done on a tripod with mirror lock-up to be a proper comparison. Going handheld would bring in variables like camera shake. Remember, this test is to compare contrast resolution and not the benifit of IS over non IS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexdi Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 This is the kind of question that really makes people hate pixel peepers. <p> If you already have a camera, it doesn't matter which is better. You choose whichever has the right focal range. If you don't have a camera, the 5D will any decent lens will come out on top. In a contest of pure resolution for this range, the 5D wins, end of story. <p> But it wouldn't do to choose based on that alone. There are arguments in favor of a camera system built around either. <p> For the 24-70/2.8: <p> - 24mm wide end<br> - build quality<br> - less DOF at f/2.8<br> <p> For the 17-55/2.8: <p> - 90mm long end<br> - IS <p> For sheer versatility, the IS lens takes the cake. But if you want gloriously shallow DOF, there's no question f/2.8 on the 5D will outclass any zoom on a crop body. <p> DI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovcom_photo Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Let me add that the 24-70L provides better color rendtion and contrast then the 17-55 IS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 I really don't understand the point of that test... they are two different camera systems, both with inherent advantages as well as short comings. Simply buy/use what you need/want/can afford... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_m2 Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Points in favor of the 17-55 on 30D: weight, size, and cost. I think quality-wise, both are above the bar for just about anything you'd want to shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boblester Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 "Let me add that the 24-70L provides better color rendtion and contrast then the 17-55 IS." Not from 17-23. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellavance Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 17-55 on a crop body looks like 27-88. You can't use this lens on the 5D because of its full size sensor. Pierre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lana_k Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 This was a great question, cause I was thinking about the same thing. I currently have a 20d and the 24-70L lens which is mainly the only lens on the camera. I never use a tripod and can't say that I have too many blurry or out of focus pictures due to camera shake. I've taken this lens on vacations, shoot weddings with it and other things and I love the results. The only drawbacks for me is how heavy it is, and I wish it was wider! I have the 10-22mm, but I don't like to switch lenses too much and I like having the constant 2.8. That is why I was thinking of getting the 17-55mm and perhaps also upgrading to 30d... Or should I just upgrade to 5d and keep the 24-70? If the image quality is not the same on 17-55 as it is with 24-70 I guess it's not worth switching right? But if I get a 5d, it this combo going to get any heavier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 The 17-55 has pronounced light fall-off on the wide end, in some samples I've seen posted here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucas_jarvis Posted July 13, 2006 Author Share Posted July 13, 2006 Lana, you're in the same boat I'm in, and it's exactly why I'm looking for a comparison. I own the 20D and the 24-70 and the 24-105. I'm not sure if I should buy the 5D, or sell one of my lenses for the 17-55. Why someone would think that this is a silly question I'm not sure. I need to compare two different setups that cost a whole lot different, but first I need the facts on how much difference there really is. Am I wrong to do a little research before I buy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_goodman Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Light Fall-off? Wow, first time I've heard that. I can certainly say that I have not seen that on mine. I guess I could compare my 17-55 to my 17-40; but that's not the question here. I'll just say that my 17-55 f2.8 was the best $1200 I ever spent on my photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lana_k Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Lucas, if I had the money I'd get the 17-55 and use it on my 20d and see how it is. Keep the 24-70, just in case you do end up getting a 5d in the future. I love the 24-70 too much to sell it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 For me, $1100+ for an EF-S lens is a non-starter. From the PhotoDo tests. . .performance of the 17-55 is not "L" quality. -> what you are paying (dearly) for is the image stabilization. Note that the 24-70/2.8L is an older lens and does not carry the huge "new and shiney" price premium of the 17-55/2.8-EF-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhio Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 If you buy the 5D, when take the 24-70l, this is very very precision lens. But if you remaing in the 1.6X range, well, you take the 17-55 IS, If you used the tripod, ( for me, the IS on the medium tele is useless, cause only ulterior distortion of the image) then you take the 17-40L, this is the almost perfect lens, ( because the perfect not esist), better also of the 16-35L 2.8. 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