17-55mm or 24-70mm?

[courtney_messier]

<p>Hi! I have a Canon T3i and I am just starting to book families, small children, seniors and engagement sessions that are almost always in an outdoor location. I am trying to find my perfect workhorse lens for portraits. I am between the 17-55mm and 24-70mm. I also want to be assured that if i am working in a small space, that I will be equipped for that as well. I am not really considering upgrading to a full frame camera anytime soon, because I know that is a consideration when comparing the two. </p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>The Canon EF 24-70 is a very expensive lens, do you really need that lens when you're just starting out? Given the price difference, I think the 17-55 would be a better choice. Not to mention that it's a wider lens for close spaces (though using a wide lens in a small space for portraits can be super challenging because of perspective distortion).</p>

<p><Chas><br /><br /></p>

[courtney_messier]

<p>Thanks for your input! I have rented the 17-55mm lens and used it for a newborn session. The rental company techs there recommended that lens to me. I really liked it! </p>

[paddler4]

<p>Indoors, a shorter length is often handy. However, keep in mind that as you use a shorter lens, you will get closer, and perspective changes. On a crop sensor camera, once you get shorter than about 30 mm, you will get closer, and perspective will gradually become exaggerated--for example, noses will look bigger. The effects of moving forward and back are gradual, but they are real. The classic portrait length for a crop sensor camera is about 60mm, but people often go considerably shorter or longer.<br>

<br />To see this, take the lens you rented. Set it at 17 mm, and walk forward until you have a face and shoulders framed. Take a shot. Then set it for 55mm, walk backwards until the framing is identical, and take another shot. Compare the two shots on the computer.</p>

<p>When I used a crop sensor and had enough space to get far enough back, I used a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 most of the time. It's an inexpensive lens, so you lose some niceties, but it is optically very good, particularly on a crop sensor. (It's a tad soft in the corners, but the crop sensor lops the corners off.) </p>

[ruben leal]

Courtney, what's your current lens and

why it doesn't works for you anymore?

 

Once you identify the reason to

change, then it will be easier to help

you decide.

[courtney_messier]

<p>I am currently using a 55-250mm. I do like the lens and I have shot a lot of great sessions with it but the depth of field isnt that great and the images aren't that sharp. Also, the focal length is too close sometimes, but not in all events. I think I am leaning more towards the 17-55mm lens based on price and the IS since I will be working a lot with children. I also have a 85mm, which is an amazing lens but its really too close.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I have a 24-70 II and it's a terrific lens for portraiture, but I shot with full frame <em>and</em> crop bodies. A 24-70mm lens is considered a normal zoom on full frame bodies, but would be more like a short telephoto zoom on crop bodies, while a 17-55mm is a normal zoom on crop bodies. Since your needs fit more within the "normal" focal length range, and you're using a T3i, the 17-55 would be the more useful (and much cheaper) option.</p>

<p>I'd like to make a further suggestion that you eventually upgrade your 55-250 to a 70-200/4 L IS. The latter is an outstanding lens for outdoor informal portraiture; it's very sharp, and has excellent bokeh for an f/4 zoom. It's the lens I use the most outdoors on both my full frame and crop bodies. And while the 70-200/2.8 is a stop faster, it's much heavier, bulkier, and more expensive, and I have found that I rarely need the additional stop in outdoor daylight.</p>

[dave404]

<p>On the crop body I did not like my 24-70 but on my 5D3 I love it. You probably need the 17 mm. The expense is another issue. The 17-55 is also a bit lighter. </p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>The 17-55 is a great focal length. I have the Nikkor version and it's only drawback is its weight. It is one heavy dude. I have used it at weddings and I love it. It is razor sharp and clear. I am assuming that the Canon is close optically.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[William Michael]

<p>The 17 to 55 is the better and more logical choice between those two lenses.</p>

<p>If you needed the 70mm Focal Length, you can shoot at 55mm and crop the frame in Post Production – you will not lose much Image Quality – probably won’t notice any loss - and you will have the shot that you initially planned.</p>

<p>On the other hand - If you need wider than 24mm you cannot make that intended shot.<br>

Obviously you do have two other options:<br>

- (If you can), move to a different perspective by moving the camera backwards and use a 24mm Lens<br>

– Reframe the intended shot – and then make it at 24mm<br>

BUT - both these options result in a different shot, than the one initially intended.</p>

<p>I agree with Mark: in addition to a 17 to 55/2.8 zoom a 70 to 200 L IS zoom makes a very good pair on APS-C for general Portrait work – and the F/4 version is, comparatively very light weight and presents excellent value for money .</p>

<p>WW </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Luckily you likely already have enough information to answer this question for yourself. Simply take a look at the shots you've done with the 17-55. In the exif data you'll find what focal length you used for each shot. If any significant percentage of the shots were taken at wider than 24mm, you should likely stick w/ the EF-S 17-55/2.8, or a Tamron 17-50/2.8 (just as good optically, but lacking IS, USM, and 2/3 the sticker shock). Since either your site, or your style, has you using such a FL regularly.</p>

<p>If, OTOH, many of your shots are taken at 55mm, it's likely you'll benefit from shooting w/ a lens with a bit more length, since it demonstrates the tendency to want to go with a longer focal length. Personally, I found, even when shooting on the crop, that I wanted the ability to shoot significantly tighter than 50/55mm. When shooting APS-C, the 24-70mm felt just about right, though the 70-200 always felt a bit too long. After I switched to FF, the 70-200/2.8 felt ideal for many single subject portrait duties, whereas the 24-70 often feels too wide. Frankly, an f4 lens (in either range) lacks too much control over DOF for my style of shooting. </p>

<p>All of this depends on how *you* shoot though. For *most* crop shooters, the 17-55 covers their 'normal' range quite handily.</p>

[eric_altherr]

<p>Lots of great feedback here. I haven't seen it mentioned, but I would throw the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS lens in the mix. I'm very pleased with its performance and IQ for general portraiture and weddings. Affordable, but something you can build on. Paired with the Sigma 50-150 2.8, you are covered for 95% of the shots you'd take (crop body camera only, of course).</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>The 24-70 mark I or mark II. There is a huge price and weight difference between the two ?</p>