Canon EF 24-70 F2.8L vs EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS USM

[7dfever]

Good day to all! This is my virgin post in this forum. Nice to meet you!!


A little background of my hassle in struggling between EF 24-70 F2.8Land EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS USM:


1. My body is 7D, and already has got a EF 70-200 F4 IS USM.


2. Needing a lens as my walking-around gear.


3. My primary subjects are my kids (who are always running around thus fast lens is needed) and family.


4. I do documentary shooting most (i.e. unposed pictures) and therefore again fast lens is prefered.


5. Indoor shooting all the time, so larger aperture is needed.


6. My personal preference is picture sharpness.


And here below are my concerns with the two lenses:


For 24-70:


i) It's heavy.


ii) I have seen some posts here saying 17-55 is sharper than 24-70 in all relevant range if using it in a crop body. Is that true?


iii) It's not wide enough if using it in my 7D. Might essentially need to buy another wide lens.


For 17-55:


i) Key concern is the build quality. People say it's good at collecting dust (though it won't really affect the image quality but still won't feel good about it).


ii) My brother has a 5D MkII. So 17-55 cannot be shared.


This is what I can think of now. At the moment, I feel I should get the 17-55, but I really hate the dust collect thing. And 24-70 really looks good with the red ring (opps, I know I shouldn't) though it's much heavier and being not wide enough in my crop body.


If anyone can throw me some ideas or hints, please do. Many thanks in advance!

[Keith B]

I only have experience with the 24-70. I will tell you it is heavy. My images out of it are as sharp as anything I've shot with so I would almost think sharpness and IQ were almost a non issue between the two. I think you will have an issue with it not being wide enough on the 1.6 crop.

[Daniel Browning]

ii) I have seen some posts here saying 17-55 is sharper than 24-70 in all relevant range if using it in a crop body. Is that true?


It's true, but the difference is small. The 17-55 has slightly higher microcontrast (sharpness), but the 24-70 has slightly less chromatic aberration and distortion. The L also has less vignetting. I'm not sure how they compare on flare.

[crosbyharbison]

I love the weight of the 24-70, then again I am comparing it against the 70-200 2.8 IS... :D


Your brother can borrow your camera if he want to use the 17-55; I'm sure you'd like to use his 5d and vice versa. Wide angle is a must to have so go with the 17-55!

[AxelB]

I have had both lenses on crop and FF bodies. Picture quality in respect of sharpness is outstanding in both lenses. Even the build quality of the EF-S 17-55 is very good - it's not weather sealed like the 24-70L, but you cannot fully utilize this feature with any other body than a 1D anyway.


Also, don't forget the IS - it makes the EF-S 17-55 even more desirable in comparison to the 24-70. Especially since you want to shoot indoors a lot. For a crop body you want to have the wide angle of the 17mm - don't bother looking at the 24-70 anymore :-)


I only fear that once you start using the 2.8 glass you will want to upgrade your 70-200 as well ...


AxelB

[freelanceshots]

<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Win32)" />
<style type="text/css"]
&lt;!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
--&gt;
</style>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"]
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Win32)" />
<style type="text/css"]
&lt;!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
--&gt;
</style>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]I've
owned the 17-55 IS lens and I could not really recommend it over any
L lens purchase. Picture quality from the 17-55mm IS lens is
similar but the build quality falls way short and the feel of the lens does not compare. The IS portion of this
lens is neat but don't let that suck in as it can only be used to
stop camera shake and not to stop motion. When I bought mine approx 2
years ago I paid 1150 dollars plus I paid the extra 45-50 for the
lens hood. This number ends up being pretty close to the higher end
lens purchase where I lost money selling it. After shooting with the 17-55 lens for a year and
ending up with large portions of dust sucked into it I sold it and
bought the 16-35mm II lens. My opinion is the 16-35mm lens is a way
better purchase in the long run as it should last forever and I like the image quality better. For my
type of work which is basically all areas of commercial photography I
predominately rely on two lenses, the 16-35mm and my 70-200mm. When
shooting in interior rooms with a crop sensor camera I think from my
experience that any crop camera shooter needs to have a 10-20/22mm
range lens. Even though they don't typically make one of these
crop lens in a f/2.8, shoot at f/3.5 - 4 and use bounce flash. As far
as the 24-70mm lens I feel that it is an in between lens where the
two essential lens like I mentioned before are the 16-35mm and
70-200mm. Anything in between the use of these two lenses you can
back up or move forward to re-frame your subject as desired.
Once you're in the situation where you don't have the room to back up
to get a wider perspective then you have to compromise your
shot. If I had endless money of course I would own the 24-70 lens as
there are certain times when you need more reach then 35mm and not
all the way to 70mm but they are rare for me.

[MacManUS]

Axel





I had / have the same conundrum. I have had a 20D for five years, and I will have the 7D incoming within the next 30 days. I started with the EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6, and it has been a great lens, just a little slow for indoor work. About a month ago, I bought the EF-S 17-55 f2.8, and it has all but retired the 17-85 lens, which I am still debating about selling, but the extra length still comes in handy. The 17-55 f2.8 is one killer lens, and the IS on it is amazing, at least 2 full stops. The bokeh is also very nice when you want it! The sharpness is very very good on this lens. As for the (well beaten) dust issue, I believe that if you get the lens from a supplier that sells a lot of glass, and has "New Recent Stock", like B&amp;H, that this issue is gone, at least it has been for me. Mine arrived with none, and in daily heavy outdoor work for a month, it has none yet.


As you are a 7D user, there is no doubt the right move is the 17-55 f2.8, just do it. The next lens you WILL want is the EF-S 10-22, I have had it for three days now, and am just floored with it's build quality and the picture sharpness.


Add a 50MM f1.4 for portraits, and a 70-200MM f2.8 IS for wildlife and sports, and you will have a kit that many will envy... including most cinematographers!


Best

[BCalkins]

I have the 17-55 and a 24-105 (I know you're asking about the 24-70, but I think this still applies). I have found the extra reach over the 17-55 a big deal for family shots, especially kids. Granted the 24-70 isn't 105mm, but for family shots 24mm is wide enough for me, otherwise for kid shots I'm always at the long end of the 24-105. With the 17-55 I frequently wanted to switch lenses to a 70-200, but then you can't quite zoom out enough on a crop camera- I always found myself wanting to be in the middle of the two lenses. If you are shooting moving kids, the IS won't help you at all. You can probably handhold 55mm at 1/60s or so anyways, and my kids don't stay still for even that long :) Being able to shoot at 1/15s doesn't add much for moving subjects.


If you have any desire to get the 10-22mm later (or a 5D!), I'd go with the 24-70... Helps with going full frame later (or your brother's camera) and resale. That is my advice for family shooting. If you do a lot of landscapes, or especially interiors, you'll find the 24mm limiting.


As anasidemy 17-55mm is in for repair- the aperture and IS stopped working after about a year and a half. I did get some dust, but definitely can't tell in the pictures. I will say that the 17-55mm is the sharpest zoom I've owned (versus 24-105 and 70-200) in terms of getting consistently sharp images out of it, even wide open. I use a 40D.


I thought the 17-55mm would be a perfect one stop lens - but since getting the 24-105 I never pull out the 17-55mm for family shots (especially now that it is with Canon!) anymore. Could be a different story on the 7D, though - you'll have more pixels to crop with...


A third option is a used 28-70 plus the 10-22mm, if you can find a good one...

[Cris]

I have a 24 -70 f2,8 l usm and i honestly tell you: THAT THING IS SUPER SHARP, (maybe i have a good copy) but my lens is very very sharp.

I really like the weight (1kg) and doesn&acute;t bother me at all, in fact my 70-200 f2,8 IS is 470grams heavier and i like it a LOT.
The 24 70- has a L lens build quality and it&acute;s like a tank: it is solid and extremely well made, and it has weather sealing which is always a nice feature.
The 24-70 is a more worth investment because you in the future may like to upgrade to a full frame camera and you can always use the lens, contrary to the efs 17 55 f2,8 is.

Well i guess i'm just another L freak. eheheh

sorry for my bad english, i&acute;m portuguese... XD

[coastalkid88]

To put this simply these are both very good lenses the difference is




That the 24-70L. Is a pro series lens its fully weather sealed. Made Metal and quite heavy I would say it also slightly out proforms the 17-55 optically. On the other hand the 17-55 is an efs lens so it not compatable with and film or pro series cameras.
Also It is a good quailiy lens but its plastic not weather sealed and is made more for consumer used than professional use.




A good note for the most part L series lenses are, but not always better at taking pictures but it will always hold up beter in the long run. One of my 24-70 2.8 is now five years old and my 28-135 is which I bought before my 24-70 broke within 2 years of professional use the build quality is just better.




I hope this explains the difference






Thanks.
Coastal Kid

[bouwy]

I just bought both and they are brilliant on my 450D. 24-70 will work nicely with your 7D ( my next dream) and I don't think dust is going to be an issue on the 17-55. Good luck choosing.

[apersson850]

I don't have any 24-70, but use both the EF-S 17-55 mm f/2.8 IS USM and the EF 24-105 mm f/4L IS USM on my 40D and 7D cameras.

[nemaphotography]

i have the 24-70L but honestly think that the 24-105L is so muchsharper than the 24-70L. the 17-55mm on a x1.6 is IMO more sharp than the 24-70 as well.





-e

[7dfever]

Thanks all for your inputs. Appreciated!


So I ended up visiting Canon Customer Service Center, where I could test both lenses myself.


Many of you have stated before, both lenses are as good in terms of sharpness and IQ. In my test case with a 50D body, I noticed that 24-70 performed slightly better. And to take the build quality into consideration,even the Canon staff admitted that dust collect might be a potential issue for the EF-S lens, so now I am more leaning towards the 24-70.


In terms of range coverage, a wide angle such as EF-S 10-22 might be needed to compensate 24-70's insufficiency.


Thank you all again!

[Jeff Lucia]

7dfever,


Sorry for the late reply, but I own both lenses and I thought I could offer some perspective.


The 24-70 (mine anyway) is an amazing lens...but it's flat-out not wide enough on a 1.6 crop body. It even feels a little long on a 1.3 crop body.


The 17-55 is also an amazing lens, probably a little overpriced but since it loses its value faster than an L lens, why not buy it used? Mine has a couple of dust specks after 2 years, but no big whoop. The thing is very sharp, even wide open, and the IS works amazingly well. Who cares if it's not built like a tank? Neither is your 7D.


Unless you see yourself buying the 10-22 as well, I think you'll find the 24-70 isn't wide enough. If you're worried about it now (and you said you are) chances are it will be a problem for you.


One other point that I didn't see mentioned: the 17-55's zoom ring is in the front, while the focus ring is closer to the camera body. The 24-70's zoom ring is closer to the camera body, while the focus ring is at the front of the lens. If you have a preference, pay attention to the difference in control placement before you decide.

[Sean Setters]

Well, I'll join this discussion late as well. While I've never owned or held the 24-70 f/2.8, these are the lenses I do own:


10-22 f/3.5-4.5


17-55 f/2.8 IS


35mm f/2


50mm f/1.4


70-200mm f/2.8 L IS


I primarily shoot with a 50D. The 17-55mm lens is the most versatile tool in my bag. It stays on my camera 3X as much as any other lens I own. No, it isn't built like an "L" lens, but the image quality is certainly "L" quality, in my opinion. If you plan on staying with a crop body for a while, I'd advise going with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS because it's the perfect general purpose lens. If you plan on upgrading to a full-frame body within the next two years, then I'd suggest buying the 24-70mm f/2.8 L.


If you want to see examples of my 17-55 examples, click here ("http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=17-55&amp;w=22336705%40N08&amp;s=rec).

[7dfever]

Thanks again for those who've chipped in and offered your advices.


As said above, I have taken the 24-70 for its build quality and less depreciation in the way onwards. I have to admit that the range is a bit long especially on my 1.6 crop body.10-22 will be consideredwhen it comes to be required for landscape shooting (not this year, cuz no more budget :P).


So far the 24-70 hasn't disappointed me. Its outdoor performance is great (image quality and color saturation/contrast). It performs as well as my 70-200 F4 IS USM. For indoor, the large aperture does help. It actually does better than my previously owned Sigma 30mm 1.4 HSM.


I was worried about its heavy weight. But it turns out not as bad as I imagined.


Today I am going out with kids to do some stress test with the lens. I will see how it goes!

[SupraSonic]

24-70 Lhas a soft image. 24-105 L is preferred for me

[freelanceshots]

<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Win32)" />
<style type="text/css"]
&lt;!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
--&gt;
</style>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"]I think you made the best choice with
your lens purchase. The L series lenses hold their value very
well where you can always turn around and sell them at any moment if
needed. Like I mentioned earlier in this post my 17-55 IS lens sucked in the dust.
The dust was not effecting the image quality but is was very
upsetting to see my 1000 dollars plus lens do this. I had to
have mine cleaned by Canon twice and then the third time I did it
myself. Read how to do it on-line where it was simple to take apart and clean. Some
people feel that the efs 17-55 lens won't collect dust but if you shoot
outdoors in dusty conditions for hours on end it will inevitably
happen.

[Daniel Browning]

24-70 Lhas a soft image. 24-105 L is preferred for me
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





The ISO 12233 test shots on this site show that the 24-70 is sharper than the 24-105 when both are at f/4.

[Keith B]

24-70 Lhas a soft image. 24-105 L is preferred for me






The ISO 12233 test shots on this site show that the 24-70 is sharper than the 24-105 when both are at f/4.






I concur. I have owned the 24-105 and presently own the 24-70. They a similar in sharpness in the center but the the corners on the 24-70 is substantially sharper. The 24-105 also suffers from heavy CA on the wide end, much more than the 24-70.


The 24-70 is probably my favorite lens at this point. It has produced some of my best and sharpest images.