EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS or EF 24-70mm f/2.8L

[Mark Elberson]

Hey everyone,


Really quick, I am buying a f/2.8 zoom for my 50D and it's between the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 ISand theEF 24-70mm f/2.8L. I am 90% on the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS but the only reason I ask is because eventually I am going to upgrade to a full frame camera. The thing is that I can't say when I am going to upgrade so my thoughts are to buy what I need now and worry about the future later. Your thoughts???

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

For crop sensor the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a better choice. Crop Sensor won't go away anytime soon, you can alway sell it when you upgrade to fullframe.

[Oren]

The 17-55 is not a small lens at all... but the 24-70 is even bigger!

[Keith B]

I agree on the crop not going away. I still love my 40D, but I'd go with the 24-70.


When you get the FF, say your crop goes down for repairs then you are left with a lens that won't work on you FF.


I know that the 17-55 is great lens and you can always sell it for minimal loss butI personally just have issues with buying lenses that won't work on all my bodies.

[markcoons]

I own both as they both have their uses. I use the 17-55 as an event lens (the IS invaluable for that) and the 24-70 for portaits.





The 17-55 is not a bad walk around lens either, a little short on the 55mm side.

[Matthew Gilley]

Since you can't define when you will upgrade, I strongly recommend the 17-55.


IS is a very useful feature if you can shoot with a slow shutter speed.


17mm is noticeably wider than 24mm. In my opinion, the difference between 55 and 70 is less. Also, you can crop 55 to get 70, you cannot "uncrop" 24 to get 17.


You may consider the 24-105, but I see people on craigslist consistently asking to trade their 24-105 for a 17-55.


Ultimately, its your decision based on what you shoot. If you have a kit lens practice shooting no wider than 24.

[Daniel Browning]

If you absolutely cannot ever sell any lenses, and you will never use a backup body (i.e. keep your 50D and 17-55), then buying the 17-55 would be a mistake, because after you upgrade it will sit in the closet. On the other hand, if you are open to the idea of selling your lens (most often within 20% of what you paid for it), or cna utilize a second body in the future, then it would be far wiser to buy the 17-55.

That said, they're really not comparable at all. The closest thing to a "full frame compatible" 17-55 is the 16-35 f/2.8 or 17-40 f/4. The 24-70 is just a completely different field of view.

The 17-55 on 50D is equivalent to a 28-90 f/4.5 on full frame.
The 24-70 on 50D is equivalent to a 38-110 f/4.5 on full frame.
Going from 28mm to 38mm is very different. And going from 38mm to 24mm is even more different.

[Chris White]

I have the 50D and the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and a B+W MRC UV Filter 010 filter and it is my main shooter. I took 176 pictures inside church of my son's First Communion yesterday and 174 were keepers and 175 would have been except I took a picture of a girl who was not part of his class and did not need it. Mind you I was shooting with no flash. I highly recommend this combination if you are not able to use a flash and/or need to freeze motion. If or when I move to a full frame, I will most likely keep this as a second camera or I am sure with the way I care for it I will be able to sell it for a fair price taking into consideration all the memories I will have captured. ;)

[George Slusher]

Some things you haven't told us that might be important:

What sort of photography will you be doing? The "better" lens for nature photography would be different from sports or portraits, etc. For nature photography, for example, I'd suggest a 100mm f/2.8 Macro ($525) plus the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS ($515, total $1040) about the same as the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS ($1030). You could even throw in the 50mm f/1.8 ($115, total $1155) and third-party hoods and still be less than the 24-70mm ($1270).

What other lenses do you have? For example, if you have the 24-105mm f/4L IS, there may not be much point in the 24-70mm f/2.8L--it's a lot of money for 1 stop plus there's no IS. If you have a 70-200mm f/4L or f/2.8L, then I'd recommend the 17-55mm lens, as it is considerably wider and you wouldn't as much need the longer focal length of the 24-70mm. If you have an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, then the 17-55mm won't buy you a lot except the f/2.8 aperture.

How wide do you want to go? On your 50D, the 24-70mm is equivalent to a 38-112mm lens on a full-frame camera. That's not very wide, at all. On the other hand, the 17-55mm is equivalent to 27-88mm, i.e., almost what the 24-80mm would be on a full-frame camera.
Why do you want an f/2.8 lens? Is it for the speed (low light, stopping action), the background blurring or ??? You could buy a series of primes for the same price that would be as fast or faster:


24mm f/2.8 $310
35mm f/2 $300

50mm f/1.8 $115
85mm f/1.8 $380
Total = $1105



If you answer those questions, the right lens might become obvious.


Another factor to consider is that, as Nhut said, the 1.6x bodies aren't going away. (They probably outsell the full-frame and 1.3x bodies by several times.) Thus, you can always get rid of the 17-55mm lens if you switch to a 5D. I paid $780 for a used 17-55mm lens, so it, like the "L" lenses, holds its value pretty well. (That was about the average price over the past several months. I've seen the lens sell for as much as $850-890.)


I have the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and would like to also get the 24-70mm f/2.8L. The reason is simple: I shoot indoor sports (horse events) where the f/2.8 aperture is very helpful. I have the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens, but the IS doesn't help a lot because of the shutter speed I need (1/400-1/800) to stop the horses' legs in motion. The 24-70mm would fit just under the 70-200mm lens, but, for wider shots, I'd still need the 17-55mm. Even then, I may have a 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8 and/or 100mm f/2 for really fast action.


When I do nature (wildlife, birds, flowers, etc.) photography, I carry a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (plus 1.4x extender, to go to 140-560mm f/6-8) and the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS. They're usually fast enough for outdoors shots. I may also have a 100mm f/2.8 Macro along, though a 77mm Canon 500D close-up lens may suffice. Sometimes, I will include a Sigma 10-20mm lens for super close-ups.


For flowers (gardens, etc), I now use the 17-55mm lens mostly because it has better image quality than the 17-85mm that I used to use. (I don't use f/2.8 very often because of the very shallow depth of field.) I usually also have the 100mm Macro & 70-200mm f/4L IS. The f/4L IS is less than half the weight of the f/2.8L IS
lens (1.6 lb vs 3.5 lbs!) and is actually "good" handheld to slower
shutter speeds because of the greatly superior IS. If I don't need the
action-stopping or background-blurring of the f/2.8 lens, why carry
that big, heavy lens around? (I had the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens for quite
a while before biting the bullet and getting the f/2.8L IS lens.)


If I'm shooting people indoors, the 17-55mm usually fits the bill, though, for available light, the 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.8 can be quite useful. For "walking around" outdoors during the day, the 17-85mm is lighter and has a longer range than the 17-55mm lens. It may be accompanied by a Sigma 10-20mm and perhaps the 70-200mm f/4L IS.


So, you may see that there's no one answer that fits everyone well.

[Mark Elberson]

Thanks for all of your input. I must say that I am a bit surprised based on the vote counter. I was expecting it to be much more skewed in favor of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.


To answer some of your questions:






Also, you can crop 55 to get 70, you cannot
"uncrop" 24 to get 17





great point!






If you absolutely cannot ever
sell any lenses, and you will never use a backup body (i.e. keep your
50D and 17-55), then buying the 17-55 would be a mistake, because after
you upgrade it will sit in the closet. On the other hand, if you are
open to the idea of selling your lens (most often within 20% of what
you paid for it), or cna utilize a second body in the future, then it
would be far wiser to buy the 17-55.





I don't mind selling a lens (I just sold my EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS on Bryan's new Buy/Sell Forum so that's why I am in the market for a f/2.8 zoom) and I hope to use my 50D as a back-up once I upgrade.






Some things you haven't told us that might be important:



1. What sort of photography will you be doing?





Lots of available-light portraiture and candids






2. What other lenses do you have?



<p class="irregualrHeader"]My current gear:



Canon EOS 50D
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4






3. How wide do you want to go





As
you can see, I have the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 and used to have the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS. I really liked it but for landscapes
and certain indoor shots 24mm was limiting (as well was the f/4 aperture) and I was doing a lot of lens switching between it and my ultra wide so I can see the
advantage of having 17mm at the wide end. It's like Matthew Gilley
said, "Also, you can crop 55 to get 70, you cannot
"uncrop" 24 to get 17"






4.
Why do you want an f/2.8 lens? Is it for the speed (low light, stopping
action), the background blurring or ??? You could buy a series of
primes for the same price that would be as fast or faster:





Yes and Yes. I use the EF
50mm f/1.4 when I don't want to consider a flash or just want an ultra
thin DOF. Most of the time I would prefer the versatility of a zoom
over a faster prime.






Another factor to consider is that, as Nhut said, the 1.6x bodies
aren't going away. (They probably outsell the full-frame and 1.3x
bodies by several times.) Thus, you can always get rid of the 17-55mm
lens if you switch to a 5D. I paid $780 for a used 17-55mm lens, so it,
like the "L" lenses, holds its value pretty well. (That was about the
average price over the past several months. I've seen the lens sell for
as much as $850-890.)





I concur. I hope to be able
to keep my 1.6x body even when I upgrade for use as a back-up and for
telephoto/macro work. I have a feeling that once I get the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS I won't want to sell it but sometimes my budget won't allow for everything that I want :(


There it is, I made up my mind. I will be ordering the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS from B&amp;H via Bryan's link so he can get the credit.

[Mark Elberson]

The 17-55 on 50D is equivalent to a 28-90 f/4.5 on full frame.
The 24-70 on 50D is equivalent to a 38-110 f/4.5 on full frame.
Going from 28mm to 38mm is very different. And going from 38mm to 24mm is even more different.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>




<div><span style="font-size: small;"]I found this insteresting...

The difference in focal length at the short end (17mm vs. 24mm) is only 7mm but the difference in FOV is about 18 degrees.
The difference in focal length at the long end (55mm vs. 70mm) is 15mm but the difference in FOV is under 6 degrees.</div>

[George Slusher]

I found this insteresting...
<div style="clear: both;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]
The difference in focal length at the short end (17mm vs. 24mm) is only 7mm but the difference in FOV is about 18 degrees.
The difference in focal length at the long end (55mm vs. 70mm) is 15mm but the difference in FOV is under 6 degrees.</div>


It's not the numerical difference but the ratio of the focal lengths
that is important, though that doesn't directly translate into FOV in the same ratio. It
does translate into magnification, which can be related to field of
view.



Here's an example: 10mm to 20mm is a factor of 2, so, if an object at infinity has an image 1mm long on the sensor at 10mm focal length, the image will be 2mm long on the sensor at 20mm focal length. (The magnification doubles--but that's strictly true only for objects at infinity, i.e., pretty far away.)


Now start at 100mm. If the image of an object at infinity is 1mm long on the sensor at 100mm, at 110mm (same numerical difference as between 10mm and 20mm), the image will be 1.1mm long. To get the image to be 2mm long, you'd have to go to 200mm.


To put this another way, an image that fills the frame in one dimension at 20mm will be only half as wide/long at 10mm. The same ratio would hold for 200mm and 100mm or any other pair of focal lengths that are in the ratio of 2:1.


Field of view can be related to magnification with trigonometry. You can look this up on Google, if you like.


The same sort of relationship can be found between f-stops. f/1.4 and f/2 are only 0.6 apart, but that's the same ratio as between f/11 and f/16, which are 5 units apart. Both are "one stop" apart. An exposure that requires 1/30 sec at f/1.4 would require 1/15 sec at f/2. An exposure at f/11 that requires 1/30 sec would require 1/15 sec at f/16. In the case of f-stops, the operative comparison is the square of the ratio of the stop numbers. (They go up in steps of the square root of 2. The "standard" f-stops are: 1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32. Each of those is one stop from its neighbors. (One stop = a difference of 1 EV.)


The square root comes in because f-stop is defined as the ratio of the focal length to the effective aperture diameter. Thus, an f-stop of 2 would mean that the effective aperture is half the lens focal length. An f-stop of 4 would mean an effective aperture 1/4 the focal length. Thus, the ratio of the effective aperture diameters for f/4 vs f/2 would be 2. However, it's the AREA of the aperture that affects exposure. The amount of light that reaches the sensor or film is proportional to the time the shutter is open and the area of the aperture, which is proportional to the SQUARE of the diameter. Each successive "stop" represents a ratio of DIAMETERS by the square root of two and thus a ratio of AREAS by 2.


For example, the effective area of an lens's aperture at f/2 would be *4* times the area of the same lens at f/4--two stops = 4x the light. For the same exposure, you could make the shutter speed 1/4 as long (e.g., from 1/15 sec to 1/60 sec).


Then, there are Guide Numbers for strobes ...

[finnadat]

Funny thing is that i was about to ask the same question - i have the 10-22 as well and a 70-200 f4 L on an XTI and was thinking that the 24-70 would be it. The only issue is that it is really big and top heavy on the XTI for a walk around lens but the downside of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is the 17-22 overlap with the wide angle and the 15mm you lose on the top end. The "you can crop 55 to get 70, you cannot
"uncrop" 24 to get 17" is a good point but if i'm gonna go wide i'll prob just change to the 10-22 and shoot with that.


I'm still leaning towards the 24-70 and getting the next version of the 50d but i'll probably change my mind about 5 more times before i do something about it.


keep us updated on what you think about the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS as i would be interested in your take and if you think the 55 isn't long enough on the top end.

[Mark Elberson]

...the downside of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is the 17-22 overlap with the wide angle and the 15mm you lose on the top end. The "you can crop 55 to get 70, you cannot "uncrop" 24 to get 17" is a good point but if i'm gonna go wide i'll prob just change to the 10-22 and shoot with that...






My thought is that the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 is more of a specialty lens. When I put that on my camera it's usually when I am trying to achieve a specific look. Like Bryan said, "The similarly-built Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens turned in similar optical results to the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens in the short range of focal lengths that overlap. I see these lenses more as complementary than competing." I'm not concered about the overlap in focal length either. The full-frameL series counterparts tothese two lenses(EF 16-35mm f/2.8L &amp; EF 24-70mm f/2.8L) have overlap between them as well.


I believe my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is scheduled to arrive tomorrow so once I get to play with it for a little bit I'll be sure to report back!

[Mark Elberson]

Here's a picture taken with my new EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It's not very represenative of what this lens can do but I am at the office and it's the only file that I have with me. I was more concerned with catching this smile than taking a technically sound picture :)


I don't have acess to the EXIF data but the best that I can remember is :


f/2.8, 800or 1600ISO, 1/50


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.13/2009_2D00_05_2D00_13_5F00_0011.JPG

[RonG]

I have the 17-55mm f2.8 and it is an awsome lens. I use it on my 40D and when I recently added a 1D to my line up I found the need to buy another lens to use with my 1D. If you really plan on upgrading to a 1D body get the 24-70. While the IS is nice it is not indispensable and most of my pictures require a high shutter speed anyhow.

[Cushty]

I had the same decision to make. A local pro advised me to get the 24-70. Then again I already have a 17-40 f/4L to get down to 17mm. I ended up with the 24-70 2.8L and I'm not sorry. Its heavy but comes with L series pedigree and drips quality. On the downside its not IS so you are back to 1/focal length shutter speeds unless you are on a *pod. Dont use it outside without the hood.

[jusap]

These two lenses have been compared left and right a lot. I was in the same predicament a few months back.


I decided to go for the 17-55 2.8 ISU because I need the wide end. I've been to events and social gatherings and I sure can say that 24mm isn't going to cut it when you want group shots not unless you're outside and/or have a lot of space to move back on. Most of the time, the events I've been to are in limited space. The IS is a plus too. A good low light lens, 2.8 + IS combo.


But I voted for the 24-70 because you've mentioned that your going full frame, though still not sure when. So I'm voting based in the long run of the lens you'll be using. If you're going to keep your APS-C camera then I would suggest you go get that 17-55 now then get a copy of the 24-70 after you get your full frame camera. Also, though the 17-55 has the same glass as that of L lenses, having a lens with a designated L and a red ring is something. I hope to get one of those Ls myself :)


Either way, you won't go wrong. It all comes down to your preference on shooting. Would you need the wide end or an extra reach on your shots?


Go pick your poison [:P]