24-70 L or 17-55 2.8

[tdigi]

I am planning on purchasing a high quality zoom in the next few months. I shoot mostly portraits and

events where I shoot people or small groups. I have strongly considered the 17-55 since I have a 40D but

I would prefer the L lenses for the build quality and the fact it will work on a ff camera if I go that way in

the future.

 

My main question is based on image quality how do these lenses compare?

 

If I get the 24-70 I will probably get a 17-40 to cover the wide end. Or does it just make more sense to

get the 17-55 as a do it all lens.

[bryan_lardizabal]

I like the "L" build quality in my 17-40mm f4L & my 400mm f5.6L.

 

Read this review on performance...I would suggest the 24-70mm.

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

[davyjo]

I love the build quality of my 300mmm IS and my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and I love the image quality of my 17-55mm IS.

[m_barbu1]

I haven't used an EF-S 17-55mm, but chose my 24-70 based upon the criteria that is leaning you in that direction as well.

[ben_quinn1]

For portraits of no more than 2 or 3 then definitely the 24-70 as the long long end will give

you the all the 85 mm to 100 mm range that one needs for portraits.

[colinsouthern]

Start with the 24-70/2.8L - later on you can add the 70-200/2.8L & 16-35/2.8L.

[jimstrutz]

I keep asking this same question every time this gets asked, and no one gives me an acceptable answer: If 24-70mm is so preferable on a 40D, why is no one selling 38-110mm lenses for full frame any more? The reason is simple, 38-110mm is NOT acceptable to full frame shooters. It's not wiiiiiiide enough for general shooting. So a second question: Why does any photographer in their right mind recommend a 24-70mm lens for the average 40D shooter?

 

Just jerking your chain, guys. :)

 

Yes, the 24-70 f/2.8L is a great lens. It is built well, and works well. No, it is not a good lens for the average 40D shooter. Some people, like Colin Southern, never shoot wide, so they can be happy with 24-70mm, but most of us want a wide to short tele on our camera, most of the time. The 17-55 is like having a 28-88mm lens on full frame. It's the perfect range for a normal zoom.

 

The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is as sharp as the 24-70 f/2.8L, and nearly distortion free. It also adds IS. Its primary optical flaw is a propensity for flare, and otherwise it's built well, but not up to L standards.

 

Unless you are upgrading to a full frame camera soon, get the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. You'll be glad you did. :)

[colinsouthern]

"Some people, like Colin Southern, never shoot wide"

 

Err, pardon me Jim, but shooting wide is what I do most. (600+ shots in the last 28 hours) - so not quite sure where that one came from! 16-35/2.8L II is the main weapon of choice for this kind of work (can't fit EF-S on a 1D series camera).

 

OP however is looking for a lens to shoot "portraits and events" - for this the 24-70/2.8L on a 1.6x crop is perfect length, and dovetails perfectly with the 70-200/2.8L IS. If the OP wants width, then why muck around with 17mm - why not just go straight for 10mm - 22mm?

 

17-55/2.8 IQ is fine, but despite what many would like to believe, it's NOT L-Series build quailty - it's NOT fully weather sealed - and it's NOT compatable with FF or APS-H format cameras - and it leaves you with a gap from 55-70mm.

 

I can't see why anyone in their right mind WOULD want to buy one! (OK OK, a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I'm serious about that IF the photographer is considering FF or APS-H, and/or considering focal lengths beyond 55mm). In my opinion, the perfect "trilogy" of lenses are 16-35/2.8L II, 24-70/2.8L, 70-200/2.8L IS, starting with the 24-70 - On the other hand I've always felt like the 17-55/2.8 was a bit of a Maverick/Orphan lens: Good in isolation, but not really a team player.

 

Just my 10c worth - others will now proceed to beat the cr*p out of me, as usual :)

[William Michael]

>>> others will now proceed to beat the cr*p out of me, as usual :) <<<

 

 

I have a book of Kiwi jokes, if I post a few, will that suffice?

[joel_rosenthal]

I started out with a 24-70 for my 30D. Love it. But just before our second trip to Ecuador, I managed to get a 40D, and my wife started using the 30D(which I didn't have time to sell before we left--he he) with the 24-70 onboard. I was shooting mostly wildlife with a 100-400.She loved the images she got, but the weight of that package, especially after a few hours hiking, caused her difficulty in keeping her hands steady. So, for our forthcoming trips to Peru, I picked up the 17-55, which is lighter, and more importantly has IS, and will give us the wider angle I want at Machu Picchu and elsewhere. So far, she's happy with her results. Of course the plan was to sell the 24-70 to offset the 17-55 cost.Wrong--I like that lens too much and can't part with it.As to build quality and optics, I agree with Colin--you can feel and see the difference in build, but frankly, if you take reasonable care of the 17-55(ie don't drop it or use it to fend off muggers)I don't see why it won't last as long as any L lens .I think the weather sealing is irrelevant if you're shooting with non weather sealed cameras(like the 40 or 30D). So the answer is easy. Buy both--or better yet, rent them both and see what works best for you.

[eigtball]

I purchased the 17-55/2.6 IS and I absolutely love it. The photo's in low light are sharp and the focus is beautiful. I would recommend it 100% on a 1.6x camera. It's well worth the cost.

[tdigi]

This is a tough call, I have been going over different options for the past few months and I

have held off doing anything because I keep changing my mind. I guess the good news is

both are great so its seems like I cant go wrong.

 

Of course having both sounds great but expensive. If I was thinking of 2 in this range

would the 17-55 and 24-105 be a better combo?

[clgriffin]

I used a 17-85 IS zoom all over Europe for 4 months on a XTi (400D) with stunningly good results. Maybe I got lucky with the particular lens. I carried a 10-22 zoom and a 70-300 IS zoom and rarely needed to use them because the 17-85 worked for 90 percent of my 8600 images.<div></div>

[clgriffin]

Should have added: Even though I praise the 17-85 IS, the 24-70 L can be sharper than one might expect.

 

Heres a rubble wall in St Thomas, shot with the 24-70.<div></div>

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>Why does any photographer in their right mind recommend a 24-70mm lens for the average 40D shooter?</i></p><p>Because most photographers in their right minds recognize the inevitability of moving away from APS-C, and furthermore, recognize that no matter how much some people like their EF-S lenses, they don't hold value nearly as well as the EF "L" counterparts. :)</p>

 

<p><i>I have a book of Kiwi jokes, if I post a few, will that suffice?</i></p><p>*laughs* Perhaps not, but I'd still like to read a few of the better ones.</p>

[tdigi]

M Barbu, thats exactly why I keep holding out on buying the 17-55. I know at some point

FF will be the next body I purchase so its hard to bring myself to spend the $1000 on an

EF-S lens.

 

I admit its the perfect lens for a 1.6 crop camera but I would prefer a lens that works on

both FF and 1.6 crop cameras since I will most likely keep my 40D and pair it with a 5D. I

do like the build quality of the L's as well. It seems my wait and debate will continue.

 

I guess a combo of 17-40 F4 with a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 will be great with any

camera.

[bob_osullivan]

Youre really comparing two different types of lenses if you are comparing them both on the same 1.6 crop body. The equivalent focal lengths are 39-112 vs 27-88. So the 24-70 is normal to tele, and the 17-55 is a wide to modest tele. The 17-55 is meant to be the crop version of a 24-70. So basically you get the 17-55 if you have a crop body and a 24-70 if you have a ff body.

 

Now the 24-70 has the advantage of dust sealing but that only matters if your body has it too. And the metal construction/build quality.

 

The 17-55 has the advantage of IS and being much lighter/smaller.

 

The image quality of both is reported to be very similar.

 

Either of these can be a part of a lens "team" as Colin put it. In FF terms his 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 could be approximated in crop terms with 10-22, 17-55, 70-200. That Gap, between 55 and 70 (88-112) is not troublesome, it equates to a step forward or back.

[jim_larson1]

Bah.

 

I say get the 24-70/2.8L and pair it with the 10-22/EF-S.

 

I personally am not excited about the 17-55/2.8-EFS because

1) $1000 for an EF-S lens. 'nough said.

2) "IS" is not that essential at 30mm on a camera that has a usable 1600 ISO setting.

3) One does not do portraits of a breathing subject at a 1/6th shutter speed.

 

For all around APS-C shooting; I choose 10-22/EF-S and a 24-105/IS. If you have portrait needs. . .I would add a 50/1.4 AND 85/1.8 to the above two lenses.

 

For longer distances. . . I am increasingly finding my 1.4TC and 70-200/4L to be too SHORT. I may yet need the 100-400/IS or add a 300/4L (my shoulders hurt just thinking about it)

[savagesax]

Interesting topic regarding quality lenses. For portraits I actually like the 24-105. It's not as sharp as the 24-70. So when one photographs the average person, not a model, I often add a soft filter, or soften the image using less contrast and a bit of retouching in photoshop. My favorite soft filter filter is the Softar 1, which costs around $250 and up depending on the ring size. 77mm is about $300.

 

For landscapes and models I'd go with the sharper 24-70mm.

[colinsouthern]

"I have a book of Kiwi jokes, if I post a few, will that suffice?"

 

I think I know that book - funny thing is that the NZ edition is Aussie Jokes :)

[William Michael]

It is the same bloody book!

 

 

The buggers just swapped the subjects and the predicates, and sell an edition to each of us . . .

 

 

:)

[colinsouthern]

"The buggers just swapped the subjects and the predicates"

 

Aww - now you're using big words that I don't understand again :(

[William Michael]

`I will most likely keep my 40D and pair it with a 5D.`

 

Tommy, I have a 20D and a 5D. This dual format system has been my plan since my adoption of the EOS Digital system.

 

Today, I want the three F2.8L zooms, and I have the 70 to 200, my next purchase will be the 16 to 35MkII. It will be long time before I get the 24 to 70, (other prime lenses first): and indeed I might change my mind about that issue and not get the 24 to 70 at all.

 

 

Something you might ponder is that, if you do have a dual format system, the 24 to 70 becomes the least needed, F2.8 EF zoom, and, apropos having a 5D, the EF-S 17 to 55 becomes limited in it use, which is one of the principles of your question.

 

 

I am unable to recall the other threads where you have mentioned the other lenses you have, or are considering.

 

But it might be that neither the EF-S17 to 55 or the EF24 to 70 are the most useful zoom, as a long term purchase.

 

 

WW

[tdigi]

William I currently have a 40D with a Tamron 28-75 2.8 and a Canon 50 1.4. Why do you

think the 24-70 range would be the least needed?

 

I have considered many different options since I am trying to avoid the EF-S lenses but still

cover the somewhat wider end.

[William Michael]

>>> Why do you think the 24-70 range would be the least needed? <<<

 

Consider two bodies, 5D and 40D.

 

Consider the three F2.8L zooms: 16 to 35; 24 to 70; 70 to 200.

 

There are only three combinations using any TWO of these lenses.

 

Consider any general shooting scenario, and look at the FoV range available [in 135 format terms] when we choose only TWO of these lenses:

 

16 to 35 + 24 to 70 = FoV 16 to 112

 

24 to 70 + 70 to 200 = FoV 24 to 320

 

16 to 35 + 70 to 200 = FoV 16 to 320 [not covered 57mm to 69mm]

 

The largest working FoV, across a dual camera format is provided by the 16 to 35 and 70 to 200 combinations, granted there is a gap 57 to 69, but IMO that gap is insignificant in practical terms.

 

On site, consider the working cameras:

 

General use, consider a Wedding for example:

 

40D + 16 to 35 = 25 to 56; 5D 70 to 200 = 70 to 200 (or a 50F1.8 prime on the 5D)

 

Sports outside running the sideline:

 

40D + 70 to 200 = 112 to 320; 5D 16 to 35 at the goal mouth, team shots etc

 

Sports inside: (BBall Swimming) sideline / pool access

 

40D + 16 to 35 = 25 to 56 (near the basket / close up pool side); 5D 70 to 200 = 70 to 200.

 

If you contrive any shooting scenario, there will be none in which the 16 to 35 and the 70 to 200 with the 40D and 5D combination cannot perform the same as, or better than, using the 24 to 70 with either the 16 to 35 or the 70 to 200.

 

Thus, by the process of elimination, for a two format kit I arrive at the conclusion the 24 to 70 is the least needed F2.8L zoom, of the three available: hence I will get it last, if at all.

 

WW