Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    210

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

    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    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.
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,200
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    210
    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    My goodness Scott!

    "Me fail English? That's unpossible."

    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.
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,200
    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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by coldrain


    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    539
    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...
    Last edited by noyjimi; 09-06-2006 at 07:44 AM.
    To err is human, to crop divine.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Grafton, MA
    Posts
    1,714
    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...
    www.jamisonwexler.com

    Canon 5dII|Canon 5D|Canon 40D|Sigma 15 f2.8|Canon 35 f1.4|Canon 50 f2.5|Canon 50 f1.8|Canon 85 f1.2|Canon 17-40 f4|Canon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS|Canon 24-105 f4 IS|Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5|Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS|Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 IS|Kenko 1.4x TC|Canon 580ex X3|Canon 380exII |Canon 420ex|Sunpak 383 x4|Sunpak 120j x2|Sunpak 622|Elinchrom Skyports

    Past Gear

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Formerly South Wales. Now South Carolina.
    Posts
    7,147
    Quote Originally Posted by 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...
    Let's face it. You enjoy buying new lenses

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •