17-55 f2.8 IS -vs- 24-70 f2.8L?

[Scott6]

How dose the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS stack up against the 24-70mm f2.8L. Wich one would you rather use as a primary lens for the house, park, kids, nature...


IQ wise, built wise i relize the short commings of the EF lens.

[coldrain]

huh... you realize the image quality and build quality shortcomings on the EF 24-70 f2.8 L? I think I must be misunderstanding you.

[RichNY]

Scott- You are comparing two very good lenses. The 17-55 has a good build quality, the 24-70 has an excellent build quality.

The same goes for Image quality, very good for the 17-55, excellent for the 24-70.

I think you must have made a typo somewhere in your line "IQ wise, built wise i relize the short commings of the EF lens"

Consider it this way, with the 17-55 you are getting image stabilization and a better walk around focal range while giving up a little build and image quality. The wider focal range of the 17-55 would probably be better for your indoor shots as well.

If you were using the lens for portraits you'd probably be better served by the superior optics of the 24-70L.

[Scott6]

yea i meant i want to compar the IQ of the 2 lenses. Dont compaq the built quality because i allready relize the built diffrences between L and a good EF-S.

[coldrain]

yea i meant i want to compar the IQ of the 2 lenses. Dont compaq the built quality because i allready relize the built diffrences between L and a good EF-S.
My goodness Scott!

"Me fail English? That's unpossible." :D

It is hard to compare them. They are both good, and unless you send them both to me I will not be able to compare them either.
Just make a choice on what they offer (focal range, IS, L build, weight).

Since you have the 24-70 f2.8 L (you did get this one, am I right?) you are able to judge what it is capable of. If the focal range is right, and the IQ is right, the lens is right.

[RichNY]

I can't answer this as I'm still wrestling with that issue. Read this recent thread I started- you've got lots of the board's most knowlegeable members offering input as to this very lens decision contained in the thread.

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23448

[Scott6]

Since you have the 24-70 f2.8 L (you did get this one, am I right?) you are able to judge what it is capable of. If the focal range is right, and the IQ is right, the lens is right.


yea I do, I also have 8 days left if i dont like it, and I really do like it but im haveing withdrawls about not going with a IS lens.

I also like thease compar lenes threads, there intresting to get people POV on it.

[noyjimi]

What body are you using, Scott? On a crop body, get the 17-55. On FF, get the 24-70 (well, obviously... I guess that wasn't a good question, hehe).

They're so close in IQ (resolving edge goes to 17-55, imho) that IQ is not the primary consideration. If you must have the L build, the answer is obvious.

Personally, not only does the 17-55 work great on my 20D cropper, but the IS and lighter weight more than make up for the "loss" of the L build. Some may say that IS isn't so crucial in shorter focal ranges but they have rock steady hands unlike me...

[jamison55]

For me the 17-55 IS wins - so much so that I sold my 17-40L and am in the process of doing the same with my 28-70L. The 17-55 meets the needs that I had for both of those lenses...

[Rhys]

For me the 17-55 IS wins - so much so that I sold my 17-40L and am in the process of doing the same with my 28-70L. The 17-55 meets the needs that I had for both of those lenses...

Let's face it. You enjoy buying new lenses :p

I see you're an IS convert. I wonder - if you were starting out afresh - whether you'd have bought a Pentax K100D with its IS on every lens? I know I wouldn't be so sure that I wouldn't have.

[cwphoto]

If my camera supported EF-S I know which one I would buy.

Not that the 24-70mm isn't any good - just that on a cropped body the 17-55 has a lot more going for it.:)

[coldrain]

For me the 17-55 IS wins - so much so that I sold my 17-40L and am in the process of doing the same with my 28-70L. The 17-55 meets the needs that I had for both of those lenses...
Don't go full frame anytime soon then... you will miss your 28-70!

[Scott6]

Still luvin my 24-70 L and not lookin back. after, how long? 3 weeks? I still think 24mm on my 1.6x crop body is plenty wide.

I have been shootin f2.8 a whole lot, but tongiht i learned the value of f16-22+ 430ex speedlight, holy crap the detail is breath-takeing.


As far as IS goes, I find im mostly shooting in good light where IS is no needed or im shootin moveing targets where the type of IS the 17-55 has is usless.

[cwphoto]

I have been shootin f2.8 a whole lot, but tongiht i learned the value of f16-22+ 430ex speedlight, holy crap the detail is breath-takeing.

Diffraction should be affecting the images at those sort of apertures. I think f/11 is kinda the limit on 1.6 croppers for best results.:confused:

[Scott6]

Diffraction should be affecting the images at those sort of apertures. I think f/11 is kinda the limit on 1.6 croppers for best results.:confused:

I dont know, maybe i dont know what to look for but i tried f8 f16 f22 on the same i mage and the the onyl diffrence between raw f8 and raw f16 was f16 was sharper..

[drew_viii]

i think its not necessary for the IS for that focal length 17-55, isnt it IS better for telephoto lens rather than wide angles or standard lens?

[coldrain]

I dont know, maybe i dont know what to look for but i tried f8 f16 f22 on the same i mage and the the onyl diffrence between raw f8 and raw f16 was f16 was sharper..
No, f16 is not sharper. the depth of what is in focus is bigger, but the sharpness of the things that actually are in focus is less due to the bending of the light along the aperture. for most lenses around f5.6, f8 or f11 is best if you want the sharpest results, after f16 you get noticably softer results.

[Scott6]

No, f16 is not sharper. the depth of what is in focus is bigger, but the sharpness of the things that actually are in focus is less due to the bending of the light along the aperture. for most lenses around f5.6, f8 or f11 is best if you want the sharpest results, after f16 you get noticably softer results.

hmmm.. Cool...

But what about subjects that are close up? (more macro close but witheen a few feet of the lens)

[cwphoto]

hmmm.. Cool...

But what about subjects that are close up? (more macro close but witheen a few feet of the lens)

Hey we didn't say it was unuseable, it's just not the optical sweet-spot of the lens.

For extended DoF work you may not have a choice.

[Clyde]

i think its not necessary for the IS for that focal length 17-55, isnt it IS better for telephoto lens rather than wide angles or standard lens?

I posted an older version of this pose in a previous thread. The problem I was facing here was that the lighting was crucial to the mood: I couldn't use flash. That meant that I was stuck using high ISO and a slow shutter speed. You might think that I could open up the aperture, but notice that ideally both the woman and her reflection would be in focus. That would require a very small aperture. Here I would have loved to have the 17-55 IS.

Any kind of intimate situation with low light and still or relatively still subjects can benefit from IS...

Clyde

[mski]

I'm looking at buying the 17-55 2.8 IS. I think the IS may be unnecessary for the focal length but may come in very handy for low light.

i think its not necessary for the IS for that focal length 17-55, isnt it IS better for telephoto lens rather than wide angles or standard lens?

[Rhys]

Whoa talk about bringing a thread back from the grave!

[TheWengler]

I'm looking at buying the 17-55 2.8 IS. I think the IS may be unnecessary for the focal length but may come in very handy for low light.

On this lens at 55mm you'll want to maintain a shutter speed of 1/90 sec w/o IS. If you go slower than that then you'll probably need the IS or a tripod. If you don't need the IS then there are much cheaper options.

[adam75south]

i recently sold my 24-70 and bought a 17-55. although i LOVED the 24-70 for the look(it just looks like a pro lens SHOULD look), the build, and the 55-70 end for portraits....that 17-23mm REALLY comes in handy indoors, and i'd imagine even more so for events...and that 1/8s shooting with the IS is always fun too.

as far as sharpness, i can't tell a difference, never had a complaint with the 24-70....but i actually think the 17-55 might be sharper. but like i said, negligible at most.

so what's the verdict? if you plan to go to a 5d soon get the 24-70(which is actually wider than the 17-55 when on the 5d)....or if you have the 10-22 i'd say the 24-70.

but if no 10-22 and no 5d in your plans, get the 17-55. i read someone above say the 24-70 was wide enough...i used to think that too until i got a job to shoot some pictures at a restaurant and ended up using a $40 kit lens instead of my $1000 L lens.

[michaelb]

I'm looking at buying the 17-55 2.8 IS. I think the IS may be unnecessary for the focal length but may come in very handy for low light.

It never hurts to have IS, as long as you know its limitations.

I find IS in this FL (my most used FL) to be very helpful. Having IS at longer FL's is even more helpful, but I don't shoot at longer FL's as often. Thus, I'd rather have IS in my most used FL, which for me, on a 1.6X crop, is the 17-55 range.

Also, if you don't need a fixed f/2.8 lens then the new Canon 18-55 IS lens is a great bargain for $200...
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-Lens/dp/B000V5K3FG

[downtrodden]

I'm thinkiing about selling the 24-70 and picking up the 17-55F2.8 IS i originally wrestled with the decision and as to which to buy... but now i'm back at the drawing board as to which i'd use more and which would suit me better...