24-70mm/f2.8 vs 17-55mm/f2.8 IS

[winn]

Yes, another post regarding these two lenses.I am currently trying to decide

between these two lenses. I have an XTi (small frame sensor), the 18-55 kit

lens, 70-300mm IS, the 50mm/f1.8, and the 85mm/f1.8 lenses. I want this lens

for shooting family functions including indoor shots, and indoor school sports.

After doing some research here and elswhere, I've come up with the following

advantages and disadvantages (as they pertain to me).

 

The 24-70/f2.8 will cover the range I want better (will match up to my 70-300

and will compliment my 85mm for sports), will have better IQ (probably not

noticeable for me), will be more sturdy and better sealed, and will be my first

L lens. However, it will be more lens than I need for the XTi sensor, will be

larger and heavier, and will not have IS.

 

The 17-55/f2.8 IS will match my sensor, will be lighter and smaller, will have

excellent IQ, and will have IS (a great help for indoor family shots and may be

some help at the indoor sporting activities). However, there has been a lot of

complaints about dust with the 17-55 and it will not work on a full frame

sensor (a whole another issue, I do not have any plans on changing to a full

frame camera, but it is not out of the question).

 

Did I miss anything? Does anyone have any other thoughts?...or should I go

ahead and flip the coin?

[beauh44]

Hi Brian, To me, much of it boils down to this:<P>

 

<I>I do not have any plans on changing to a full frame camera, but it is not out of the question</i><P>

 

If you indeed never go full-frame, then the 17-55 is probably the better bet; IQ will be very similar and it has IS which is very helpful indoors. OTOH, those 5D prices are pretty sweet for a FF camera and if you ever get one that 17-55 won't work. I suppose you could always sell it if you upgrade - it is a very good lens.

[bob_osullivan]

Are you happy with your 18-55 kit lens for the wide end? Because 24 on a 1.6 is really 39mm. Not wide at all.

 

I have the 17-55 so I'm biased. However, it's my understanding that the image quality of the 17-55 is as good if not better than the 24-70. You need to read many reviews. The only reason it is not an "L" is because Canon chose not weather seal it and used plastic instead of metal houseing probably for marketing reasons. They simply want all the pros going full fram an so will not call a crop lens an "L".

 

The dust issue is a non-issue and is overstated. All zooms suck in air/dust. Even primes have movement inside when focusing which moves air around. Never heard of a little dust inside messing up image quality.

[andrew_viny]

I went from the 18-55 to the 24-70. I was worried that it would not be wide enough for me but it really is. I do alot of the same sort of photography as you also so I think it might suit your needs. I have read that had the 17-55 not been done out of house (EFS) it would have been an L. Image and build quality are great. IT IS NOT SMALL! This lens is a large lens as shown here next to the 18-55.

 

http://photo.blogger.ph/wp-content/uploads/2006/DSC01271.jpg

 

As far as weather and dust sealing goes you really don't have a use for it as it only works if you have a body that is also sealed which you do not.

 

Since it isn't metal the 17-55 is going to be lighter and with IS it will be really easy to hold steady. I think for me though the range was an issue. It just wasn't long enough.

 

The 24-70 comes with a lens hood. It's nice to not have to spend $70 on a lens hood.

 

I really don't think you'll be unhappy with either lens. Look to B&H if you purchase in the next few days as both lenses are down to $900 some.

 

Good luck

[alan_green4]

the iq of the 24-70 is not better than that of the 17-55

 

if anything the 17-55 iq beats that of the 24-70

 

for family functions (especially indoors) the wide end of the 24-70 will not be as useful

 

getting a 24-70 on the off chance you may buy a ff body one day is hard to justify

 

most shooters would consider the gap between the 17-55 and 70-300 a non-issue

 

tailoring lens selection in order to optimize sports shooting with an xti doesn't make sense. (the xti is not a competent body for shooting sports)

[awindsor]

The XTi is fine for shooting sports. I would not use the XTi if I were shooting the SuperBowl for SI but for your kids soccer matches it is perfectly adequate.

 

I maintain that you buy lenses for the body you have not the body you want (or, in your case, may want sometime in the future). For my pick the 24-70 is not wide enough on a 1.6x crop factor camera for an event lens. The 17-55/2.8 IS is definitely the better choice for your camera. I think that the crop factor cameras will be here for a long time. They do the job and the sensors are significantly cheaper.

 

Incidentally look into flashes and flash brackets. This will do more for your event photography than any lens.

[jimstrutz]

The key issue was settled when you said, "The 24-70/f2.8 will cover the range I want better..."

 

I much prefer the range of the 17-55 f/2.8 IS on a crop camera, but if you don't, buy the 24-70 f/2.8L. The IS is really nice, but if it's not the range you want covered most...

[colinsouthern]

I think you summed up the pros and cons nicely. Nice as IS is, IMO it becomes more essential the longer the lens physically is.

 

I used a 24-70 on a 20D for few years - width wasn't a problem, but I did use all of the 70mm reach frequently with "out-and-about" type duties. (It was my first L-Series lens too - now they're ALL I ever use).

[William Michael]

>>> The 24-70/f2.8 will cover the range I want better <<<

 

 

I question this statement and proffer the following logic for consideration.

 

 

If you choose the 17 to 55, comparatively, you will be missing FL 55mm to 70mm (equiv. / 135format FL 88 to 112)

 

 

>>> I want this lens for shooting family functions including indoor shots, and indoor school sports. <<<

 

 

Given the lens cache into which the purchase will fit and the shooting scenarios outlined, the limitations of extending only to 24mm (equiv 38mm / 135 format) will be more than not having 55mm to 70 mm (equiv. / 135format FL 88 to 112) covered.

 

 

Note that, for indoor school sport it would be most likely the 85 F1.8 would be the first choice for a tele (rather than the 70 to 300) as it is MUCH faster; thus negating the logic of `will match up to my 70-300` in regard to the sports coverage.

 

 

Thus, getting back to my counter argument logic, the loss of 55 to 70 is insignificant, relative to the loss of wide, for all other shooting.

 

 

WW

[winn]

FIRST - Thanks for all of the responses. You've helped me better understand the differences.

 

SECOND - I did not word the following very well: "The 24-70/f2.8 ...(will match up to my 70-300 and will compliment my 85mm for sports)" I meant to say that the 24-70 will match up to my 85mm for indoor sports better (and will also match up to the 70-300 for general use). So my loss would be 55 to 85mm for the indoor shots.

 

Where I stand now. I do know that at times, when shooting indoor sports, the 50mm (which is slow focusing) has been a little short and the 85mm has been a little long - so I think the 70mm will serve me well in this case. I am going to review the family shots I've taken with the 18-55 kit lens and see how many of those were taken wider than 24mm. (I do have the 580EX flash, but it is not always convenient and it is certainly not inconspicuous for candid family shots.) Thanks again...

[William Michael]

>>> I did not word the following very well: etc <<<

 

 

Thanks for the clarification. That makes a different case.

 

 

Speaking only about the sports part of your post: I shoot a lot of Swimming (on Pool Deck); (field) Hockey; Rugby, and Gymnasium Work (On the Gym Floor): speaking solely in regard to these shooting scenarios, the 24 to 70F2.8L is superior to the 17 to 55 F2.8IS.

 

 

I say this having used the 24 to 70, and having NOT used the 17 to 55: but my opinion is based the knowledge that the 17mm to 24mm will be very rarely used and the 55 to 70 will be needed for this type of sports shooting, with a 20D (also APS-C Format).

 

 

On an entirely different (personal) point, I would NOT buy the 17 to 55F2.8IS, solely BECAUSE it is and EF-S lens.

 

 

I have a long term plan, which does not necessarily include an update with a new model body each year; but does require full integration and flexibility between all lenses and bodies.

 

 

My logic is based upon the multiplicative flexibility given by having different body format (APS-C and 135 Format) and different lenses. This idea runs against the view of many, which is, one body is sufficient and all the flexibility of the kit is attained by differentiation within the lens cache.

 

 

Hope these points help your decision.

 

 

WW

[grant g]

On a 1.6x crop camera, the 17-55 is by far the more versatile tool.

 

I have both and the 24-70 never goes on crop cameras since getting the 17-55.

[winn]

Update: I ordered the 24-70 lens (waiting patiently for UPS). For me personally, the extra length and being able upgrade to a full sensor body in the future outweighs the wider end of the 17-55 and the IS. Although I want this for both indoor family shots and covering indoor sports, the bigger justification (for me) is for covering sports than the family shots. I do have IS on the 70-300 lens and love it, but IS is not as critical on the mid-range zooms - I'll save the IS for the 70-200mm/f2.8IS :-). Thanks for all the input; I do think I would have been pleased with either lens.

[joseph_snively]

I've learned a lot about the differences between these two lenses. Now I am also faced with a choice. I am starting my lens collection, so this will absolutely not be my only lens. I am looking for the sharpest photos, period. I will have uses for both lenses, but the one I need most right now is the one that will give the clearest photos on the 40D and we'll go ahead and say that I am using it indoors. Can someone point me to some direct comparisons and sample photos?

[jimstrutz]

Joseph, the difference in image quality between the 17-55 and 24-70 is generally considered to be insignificant. Some tests have placed the 17-55 as a little sharper, but not by much. On a crop frame body (the only type that the 17-55 fits on) the 24-70 should show less light falloff in the corners when shot wide open, since it is designed for a larger sensor size. Both issues are pretty minor. Otherwise, the primary difference in image quality would be that the 17-55 has IS, and that will be noticeable in shots where a slow shutter speed is required, but not otherwise.