Hi all
I have 50D with 24-70L and 85L. I'm thinking to sell and exchange my 24-70L to 17-55 IS USM.
Can anybody hint me? Thx before
Printable View
Hi all
I have 50D with 24-70L and 85L. I'm thinking to sell and exchange my 24-70L to 17-55 IS USM.
Can anybody hint me? Thx before
Are you planning to move to full frame any time soon? If so, you'd probably regret it considerably.
If you are constantly finding your self wishing your lens would go wider rather than longer, I can see how making the switch would do you good. Both are going to be pretty comparable as far as sharpness goes and the EF-s lens has image stabilization, but in the end, it isn't and L.
I am sure others will have more to say, but if it were me, since I plan on moving to full frame in a year, I don't think I would. Just ask yourself if you think there are shots you are missing consistently because of the equipment you have, and if the 17-55 IS USM will get these shots that you couldn't get earlier, than its a no brainer.
You might also consider a dedicated wide angle like the 10-22 canon. Most people who have this lens are pretty happy with it. I personally have the Tokina 12-24 in that range and am more than pleased with it.
Just my two cents, good luck.
They are different lenses with different focal lengths and features - really, it's a 'crossgrade'.
Both lenses have:
- excellent image quality
- solid build
- fast and constant f/2.8 aperture
The 17-55mm has:
- more room on the wide end, less on the telephoto end (the difference on the wide end is perceptually larger, and you have the 85mm)
- image stabilization
The 24-70mm has:
- weather sealing
- L-lens build (the 17-55mm is very good, but L-lenses are better)
- compatibility with full frame if you get an FF body
<div>Check out the reviews to help your decision, and check out the pictures you've already taken with your camera/lens, and your shooting situations. Do you find yourself shooting with the 24-70mm at the 24mm end, and wishing you could get a wider angle of view? Do you shoot in inclement weather? Do you shoot still subjects handheld in low light, where IS would help? Are you planning on getting a full frame body in the near future?</div>
<div></div>
<div>Personally, I have the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and the 85mm f/1.8 USM and the combination of focal lengths works quite well on my crop body. For me, 24mm on the wide end would not be sufficiently wide for everyday use.</div>
<div></div>
<div>Hope that helps...</div>
Rather than throwing numbers at you, I'll give you a subjective perspective:
I have both those lenses. I had the 15-55 first. It's mostly boxed these days. It collected some dust which I imagine would be visible if I didn't generally shoot so wide open. I don't think it's my copy. You can feel air whoosh out of the front of the thing when you contract the lens. It's the nature of it. So, of course, particulate will be sucked in.
I was also never REALLY satisfied with much of the IQ on the 17-55, either. I can't imagine using it if my 24-70 is in working order.
My advice: Reconsider.
If you'd rather not, then it becomes..
My advice: trade with me.
I don't understand why everyone says that the 17-55mm and 24-70mm are so close in image quality. They look quite different to me http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Camera=453&Sample=0&am p;FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp= 474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0.
And because you have a crop body the corner sharpness would be even better on the 24-70mm. If you are going full-frame than it's obvious you should keep you 24-70mm, but if you are staying with crop bodies then I sugest that you look into a ultra-wide. I had theEF-s 18-55mm and the EF 28-80mm and in terms of focal length range I actually prefer the EF 28-80mm and would ratherhave a ultra-wide to complete my focal length range gap.
Hope this helps,
John.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
There does appear to be a difference in sharpness in the ISO-12233 charts, with the 24-70 being the sharper of the two. Of course, that might have something to do with the fact that the 24-70mm test shots were with a 1Ds Mk III whereas the 17-55mm test shots were with a 50D... Those camera bodies seem quite different to me.
Note Bryan's explicit statement in theCanon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens Review, "At all overlapping focal lengths and apertures, the 17-55 is sharper than myCanon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens."
To slow, neuroanatomist was faster :P
<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]Because they might be...
<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]The crops you show us are made with completely different camera's with different specifications. Totally not comparable in my opinion. But I might be wrong there.
<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]I quote from the 17-55 IS USM review on this very site:
<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]"Prior to receiving my Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens, I stated that I expected its image quality to match or nearly match that ofCanon's L Series Lenses<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]as it shares the L-Series<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]UD lens elements<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]. As it turns out, my 17-55<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]matches or exceeds the optical performance of my L-Series zooms<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]in this similar focal length range ... "
That stands for something I think. I've got the 17-55 myself and I am really satisfied with it. Sharpness as well colors are great. IS functions really fine and fixed aperture of 2.8 is also a treat. Build quality may not be L-series, but it surely ain't kitlensbuild.
Al that said raises the question for me: Why would I pay more (like 50% more) for a lens that doesn't give me 50% more?
For the money saved, you can buy some nice other things, maybe even lenses, as well. And I doubt that you will be disappointed by the quality that the 17-55 delivers.
I can't speak for the 24-70, but I'm sure Image Quality shouldn't be a problem, but I doubt it will be worth the price...
Well, I guess my mileage varied. I found the colors and distortion in my 15-55 to be discouraging. The contrast was fine, and it was sharp enough, but I get better results out of my 24-70.
I should not that I'm not being a good scientist about this. I'm not comparing them side-by-side. But from reviewing photos, and subjective experience, I reach this conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asmodai
You keep talking about 15-55... can be a mistypo, but we are talking about the 17-55 IS USM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
[:$]
Of course that's what I mean. It's been near on a year since I regularly used it. I seem to be entering senility at the ripe old age of 24.
Well, at least I still have my eyesight.
I used to own 10-22 canon. Mostly stayed in my dry cabinet and i sold it already.
I definitely kept my 24-70 L and consider move to FF [:)]
Thx for the advice Dave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Yes there are different, but only to the better because if you were to put the 24-70mm on the 50D it would be even better. Because of the fact that the small sensor crops out the corners and the pixel density wouldveryslightly impact the center of the frame sharpness. I'm not counting the differance in resolution, just actual sharpness at there native resolutions.
John.
Keep what you have ans save up for the 17-55 IS USM or better yet the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM.
Sometimes we just have to wait. Darn hard sometimes.
Mark
Not to long ago I chose between those two lens, not based on $. Strictly what I would shoot more. I felt the 24-70mm crept to close to my next lens, 70-200 2.8. The 17-55 went as wide as I'd need with out fish eye/barrel rolling to much on the shot. For me, a 10-22 had limiteduse for what i shoot, the 70-200 had huge use, so I fiddled in the middle with a 17-55.
I feel certain either lens will resale well if I jump to FF, so the loss isn't worth staring at.