Lens Choice! Please Help!

[bazz farazz]

<p>I've been debating and researching and still can't make up my mind. I've narrowed it down to the Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 and the Canon 24-70 2.8L. I shoot with a Rebel XSi so I have the crop factor to consider. I have the 50 1.4 for portraits and love it. But I'm wanting something that is good for low light because I shoot bands alot and its mostly indoors. So I need a good zoom. I've been approached by a few people asking if I do weddings. I usually decline because I feel I don't have enough experience for that nor do I have good enough equipment as I'm still in the early stages. One thing that is keeping me from deciding is that I shoot 35mm also and I know the EF-S lens will not work on a FF. As for my budget, I have enough for one or the other and nothing more expensive. So if anyone could help me solve this never ending decision I would much appreciate it. I hope I've provided enough info. Thanks!</p>

[mwaks]

<p>Ether way both lenses require you to have freedom to be close to the stage. The only real matter to consider is your shooting preferance.......if getting as close as possible to an individual performer, go with the 24-70mm. If wide angle is important, then its the 17-55mm. Only you can make the final call.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>The 24-70/2.8 L is arguably the best standard zoom made (it's certainly the best I've ever used), and you say you also shoot with a 35mm film body. So I think that your decision has been made.</p>

[chrisjb]

<p>You don`t say how wide you need to be, if very close to action, have you considered 16 35 f2.8 which will fit both formats ? :)</p>

[stephen_osullivan1]

<p>I just bought the 24-70 this week, and was concerned that the 24 wouldnt be wide enough to take my kids running around. But I was delighted that it is wide enough. I prefer not to get way up in people's mugs anyway, especially with kids. Besides, anything wider than 24 will distort people's faces when you're in very close. I'm happy with the choice.</p>

[btmuir]

<p>you'll regret the EF-s choice later if you go with that.</p>

[brad_smith8]

<p>I have found IS to be invaluable in low light situations.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>This is the biggest issue with crop bodies. 24 is not wide enough and EF-S lenses are not worth the price tag. I would still always take the L. </p>

 

[m._scott_clay1]

<p>It really depends on what you plan to use in the future. If you are going to switch to a FF, you probably should go with the 24-70L. However, 24 is not very wide on a cropped camera. I know a couple of photographers who live with their 17-55 on their 30Ds and 40Ds. They swear by it. I had one for awhile and really liked it, but moved on to a 5D and it was useless.<br>

You might also consider that the 17-55 has IS. I know some say it doesn't matter on a wide lens, but I disagree. I found it very useful in low light situations. Unfortunately, IS won't help if the subject is moving and band members seldom stand still. If you plan to use the camera for landscapes, you will find the 17-55 more usefully as well. Both are excellent choices.<br>

Best wishes,<br>

Scott</p>

[sheygetz]

<p>You are also talking about ~ 350g weight difference. Plus the IS! If you're concerned about the FF option get the 24-105 - same weight as the 17-55mm. Better loose one stop and have IS than vv.</p>

<p>Hendrik</p>

[m._scott_clay1]

<p>Good point Hendrik. I had forgotten how heavy the 24-70L is. I've owned the 24-70L and 24-105L. Kept the 24-105 for IS, range and weight and sold the 24-70L.</p>

<p>Scott</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Just to put the weight into perspective the 70-200 F4 IS is only 760 grams compared to 950 grams on the 24-70. On a Rebel its going to be very front heavy. </p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Just to further confound you: the lack of IS on the 24-70 is a factor to consider as well. FWIW, I have 24-105 and 24-70 and to date still have a hard time deciding which I prefer. The IS can be invaluable, but the 24-105 is not quite in the same league as the '70 for IQ, and can't focus as close.</p>

[lmwalker]

<p>IMHO: For shooting bands F2.8 or faster is required. IS is always nice, but maybe not essential depending on the lens focal length and aperture. I would use:<br />More than 10 rows back: 70-200 L IS F2.8<br />First 10 rows or on stage: 24-70 F2.8 or a combination of 28 F1.4, 50 F1.4 and 100 F2.0.<br />The flexibility of the zooms is really nice, but with bandmembers moving around, every extra stop can make a huge difference in your keeper rate, so fast prime lens are worth considering, and you can get all three of the above for substantially less than the 24-70.</p>

[bazz farazz]

<p>Thanks for the input so far. Another question I need answered on the subject is between the two, being that the 24-70 is an "L" series it would have superior image quality over the 17-55 correct? Just reading reviews, some say that the two are about on par with each other as image quality goes. Can any shed some light on that subject? I like to plan for the future and plan on upgrading one day to a FF but it won't be anytime soon.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I prefer optical quality over IS. IS may not help a lot with your images if some of the band shots are action shots. With high ISO performance getting better and better IS becomes less necessary, while exceptional optics will always be desired. </p>

<p>Does the 17-40/4 L + 70-200/4 L, at just a little more than the 24-70/2.8 L, interest you at all? Gets you quite a range with very good and excellent image quality. Your 50 fits right in between. Or do you think you will always be in the 24-70 range? </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Between those two lenses, the more versatile lens for your cropped sensor body is the EFS 17-55mm. Great optical quality, f/2.8, more useful focal length range on crop, and IS.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>The real difference is in build quality and obviously the ability to work on a full frame camera. Optically quality is very close if not equal. Build quality another story. I tested the 17-55 a while back and while it focuses fast and accurately, the zoom and overall build felt like that of the 28-135 or other mid level zooms. In your case which is more important wider or longer? Both lenses will produce very good photos.</p>

<p> </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>The 24-70 L is the better lens and allows you the option of going full frame in the future. However I just put my 24-70 on the kids Digital rebel body and it is a rather mismatched combination. The 24-70 f2.8 feels great on a 1 or 5 series body but overbalances the rebel. I suggest that you try the lens on the camera before you buy. In addition on a crop camera you may find the wide end of the lens not wide enough</p>

[alan_myers]

<p>I don't hesitate recommend the 24-70/2.8, based upon my experience with it.</p>

<p>But, for some the 17-55 may be a better choice.</p>

<p>I don't think you will see substantial difference in IQ between these two lenses. They are both excellent.</p>

<p>I have not used the 17-55/2.8 IS and presently all my lenses are EF because I occasionally still use film EOS, too. (However, I am going to be buying one wide, non-FF lens, because I anticipate continuing to use crop sensor cameras for the bulk of my shooting.) I currently use and have used other lenses with 17-xx focal length range.</p>

<p>IS is simply not very necessary to me on this focal length unless. If I were shaky for some reason I might feel differently, but I'm not and f2.8 is far more useful and important to me than f4 and IS. With good technique I can get the shots I need.</p>

<p>As mentioned, I use the 24-70/2.8 on crop sensor cameras... a lot. I find it an excellent focal length range, personally. I replaced a 28-135 (which also served well... I replace it with the 24-70 for durability and better dust sealing, and for f2.8, not so much for IQ issues).</p>

<p>I chose the 24-70 it over the 24-105. If I were mostly shooting outdoors and just using this as a walk-around lens or for a lot of travel, I might have gone with the 24-105 instead. But, I'm often shooting sports, sometimes in challenging lighting. F2.8 was more important to me, and I feel confident of my ability to hand-hold a 24-70 at some pretty low speeds, plus I have four faster primes I can turn to if really needed, within or close to the focal length range of the 24-70.</p>

<p>If you need something wider, too, you could later add a 20/2.8 or a 10-22 or a 12-24 or similar. By the way, you probably already know that the wider the lens, the easier it is to hand hold and the less critical a fast aperture or IS. The wider zooms are mostly not FF capable (widest currently: 16-35/2.8 II or 17-40/4), and only one is presently f2.8 (The Tokina 11-16, which compromises with a very narrow focal length range.)</p>

<p>Not that the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS isn't a nice lens. It is and it can produce top quality images, from all I've heard about it.</p>

<p>But the 24-70/2.8 focal lengths works better for me, even on a crop sensor camera, along with 70-200/2.8 IS and, soon, 12-24 zooms. And as an L-series the 24-70 is known for durability and reliability.</p>

<p>The 17-55/2.8 is Canon's mid-grade build quality... Decent, for certain... But $850 (currently w/rebate) or $1000 worth? That's a lot more than some other Canon zooms of fairly comparable build... A lot of extra dollars for f2.8 and IS. Cheaper than the 24-70, yes even with a rebate, but not FF capable.</p>

<p>Another thing... As cameras' ISO capabilities increase, IS will becomes less important (or, another way of looking at it, allow usability in even lower light). Still, I'm not knocking IS at all. It is important and useful to me and I love it on three telephoto lenses with it that I use: one zoom and two primes.</p>

<p>I think all these are reasons you'll find a 24-70/2.8 in many Canon-shooting wedding pros camera bags. Not all, sure, but I bet it's among the two or three top choices. It's simply one of a very short list of near legendary zooms for this type of shooting.</p>

<p>The 17-55/2.8 is rapidly becoming somewhat of a budget alternative for those committed to using crop sensor cameras for wedding work.</p>

<p>If you can go the extra cost of the 24-70, I'd recommend it.</p>

<p>If you'll be sticking with crop sensor cameras for a while, the 17-55 might be a better choice for you. Especially if you plan to shoot weddings for pay, the $300+ savings might help out with an extra camera body (essential) and, if you don't have them already, a couple decent flashes. If the cheaper 17-55 allows you to get some of these items so all your equipment can help earn its keep, that may be the better choice.</p>

<p> </p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>"overbalances the rebel"</p>

<p>Phillip, I really don't understand that. Lens weigh what they weigh, and have given dimensions. With any of the longer lens the camera body is just a little blip on the back of the lens, it doesn't matter what the body is.</p>

[lotsawa]

<p>> being that the 24-70 is an "L" series it would have superior image quality over the 17-55 correct?<br>

No. The 17-55/2.8 IS has fantastic image quality, it may be even better then the 24-70/2.8L in this respect. In this case, the "L" stands for better build quality alone, which doesn't mean the 17-55 has bad build quality.<br>

Plus, the 17-55 has got the IS, provides a reasonable wide angle view on a crop camera, and is a bit smaller, lighter, cheaper. I don't think the 24-70 makes much sense on a crop camera, unless you absolutety need it for a 35mm camera, too.<br>

The 17-55 is an outstanding lens and a joy to use.</p>

[lotsawa]

<p>> being that the 24-70 is an "L" series it would have superior image quality over the 17-55 correct?<br>

No. The 17-55/2.8 IS has fantastic image quality, it may be even better then the 24-70/2.8L in this respect. In this case, the "L" stands for better build quality alone, which doesn't mean the 17-55 has bad build quality.<br>

Plus, the 17-55 has got the IS, provides a reasonable wide angle view on a crop camera, and is a bit smaller, lighter, cheaper. I don't think the 24-70 makes much sense on a crop camera, unless you absolutety need it for a 35mm camera, too.<br>

The 17-55 is an outstanding lens and a joy to use.</p>

[ben_quinn1]

<p>I use the 24-70 on my 40d and I have somewhat of a love/hate relationship with the lens, its fantastic in terms of the contrast and saturation quality it delivers which I guess is down to the lens coatings they use and the quality of the glass. I prefer the focal length as I don't like boring wide angle shots, especially of a band on stage, I would go for more reach so you can pick out some interesting frames. I think an 85mm or 135mm prime would be cool too. However in other situations clearly 24mm is too long and of course its matter of personal taste and until they make L quality EFS lenses there will always be this dilema of picking a standard zoom.</p>

[black_bishop]

<p>The quality of the 24-70 mm is so great to forgetr your carryng 950g ?</p>