Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Question.

[george_gan1]

<p>I 'm using a Canon 50d body.What could I use that is comparable to the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM<br>

but has Image Stabilization feature?</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 has IS and seems to be loved by everyone who uses it</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>For a "normal" zoom on the 50D, you can't do better than the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Its focal length range is arguably the most appropriate for 1.6x cropped sensor bodies, it has image-stabilization, it has the f/2.8 aperture, and its optical performance is excellent.</p>

<p>The 24-Xmm L zooms are fine lenses, but there are reasons to not use them on crop - notably the fact that 24mm is barely wide angle at all.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>If you're in fact looking for similar focal length with IS, the Canon 24-105mm f4.0 IS is the obvious choice. The-Digital-Picture is a good reference site for all the Canon lens, and Canon compatible lens from other manufacturers.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>And, of course, Mendel's answer is not only correct but more directly responds to the OP's actual question than the one I posted. :-)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>(Who still thinks the EFS lens is well worth considering. If it had an "L" and a red ring on the barrel - or if the other lenses didn't - and you had to consider it purely on performance it would be interesting to see how your decision process went.)</p>

[mendel_leisk]

I used a 24-70 on a crop body for a year or so. The minimum foray into wide was frustrating, but it was still a decent combo.

[William Michael]

<p>. EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (if mentioning the 50D implies you want a similar FoV that the 24 to 70 has on a 5D).<br /><br />. EF 24 to 105F4 IS (if you do not mean the above).<br /><br />WW<br>

(Yeah, I know, both already stated - I had prepared my answer earlier)</p>

[landscape_shooter]

<p>I have the 17-55 IS and it is a really nice lens, however it won't blur the backgrounds as much as a 24-70 on full frame set-up. You need to be around 50mm focal point and kind of close to your subject to really get nice bokeh. 2.8 on crop isn't as exciting as on full frame or film to me, so if blurred backgrounds is something you want then go for primes instead. The IS does work great though. Don't forget about the much much cheaper 18-55 IS lens, which stopped down is very good and is reviewed great for the money. It has a little less contrast and color and is slower, but still a very good lens. </p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>For a "normal" zoom on the 50D, you can't do better than the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Its focal length range is arguably the most appropriate for 1.6x cropped sensor bodies, it has image-stabilization, it has the f/2.8 aperture, and its optical performance is excellent.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

 

<p >My thoughts exactly. This lens made me sell my 35/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4 (both optically excellent) as they were made redundant by the zoom. Almost every time I reached inside my bag I took out the zoom.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Happy shooting,</p>

<p >Yakim.</p>

</p>

[bill_young7]

<p>"This lens [<em>17-55</em> ] made me sell my 35/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4 (both optically excellent) as they were made redundant by the zoom." (From Yakim)<br>

I am just about to buy a 50d and restart photography after much time out. I had thought of going to all-primes in order to accelerate my learning in digital - and had looked at these Sigmas. Dumb thought? <br>

I noted that it is hard to go wide angle with decent primes without spending a fortune however.<br>

Bill</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

>>> I am just about to buy a 50d and restart photography after much time out. I had thought of going to all-primes in order

to accelerate my learning in digital - and had looked at these Sigmas.

 

I accelerated my digital learning curve with a zoom. No complaints. Why not?

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">Bill, please take note that this is my experience which, of course, is based on my style of shooting and my preferences. It is highly possible that other photographers with other style of shooting and other preferences will decide otherwise. Also note that out of the 7 lenses I currently own only 2 are zooms.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

[bill_young7]

<p>Update: I bought the 17-55 because an ex-photojournalist advised that I would learn more quickly how to take photographs by getting to know one lens. I think he is correct as I can focus (sorry!) on composition, content and lighting. I think it was good advice. <br>

Not 100% certain about the 17-55 itself however, but I have no standard of comparison. Definitely front focussing at first, requiring a +10 adjustment. Now it is sharp at short range but I am suspicious of long range: seems to lack what my photo-journalist friend calls 'pop'. Trees and landsapes look soft to me. Being inexperienced, I am not sure whether this is a factory-return issue or whether I will just look stupid.<br>

Bill</p>