24-70 or 17-55?

I've been thinking for a while and can't really figure out how to sort this decision out. I bought some time ago the 70-200mm F2.8 non-IS and I'm looking forward to save the money to get a new mid/wide-range lens to substitude my kit lens.
So, the 24-70 was in my mind because it is an L lens and it ends right where my tele start, so I wouldn't have any focal length missing. But I heard such good reviews for the 17-55 EF-S -which was the lens I also had to choose from when I bought my 70-200- that I just couldn't get it out of my mind.


So, I think I won't be upgrading to a full-frame any time soon. I think I'll pass from the XSi to an xxD body sometime when my XSi will start not to work as perfectly as it does now, or will break down totally.
Thus, I'm not really sure if I should buy the L lens -another!- since I won't be getting a full-frame soon. But I'm not so sure to buy the EF-S and then someone will just get me the full-frame for christmas or my birthday sooner than I expected.


... What are your opinions? I'm still grasping out at straws here ^^

I would get the 24-70 f/2.8Lor even the 24-105 f/4L (it's what I have on my camera 90% of the time which also is a crop sensor). If you want to go wider you could always consider the 17-40 f/4. It's missing some from the long end but it's L sharp as well as build quality. A XXD is a nice transition body from a Rebel as a full frame is a major leap. It sounds like you eventually want a full frame though (as most of us do!) so I feel it's better to try to limit the amount of EF-S glass you have in your kit. I personally only own one EF-S lens and don't plan on purchasing anymore. It's the 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 and I absolutely love it!

The 17-55, hands down. Reason being: Much better range on crop bodies, 'L' grade IQ (sharper than the 24-70), IS, smaller lighter package.

I just can't recommend EF-S, not because of quality of any sort. It is that I know sooner or later most people (if not all) will catch that full frame bug and then that lens will never see the light of day. Even if you keep a crop camera as a back up you won't want to use the EF-S lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

I just can't recommend EF-S, not because of quality of any sort. It is that I know sooner or later most people (if not all) will catch that full frame bug and then that lens will never see the light of day. Even if you keep a crop camera as a back up you won't want to use the EF-S lens.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

FWIW, the EF-S 17-55 keeps its resale value very well, in fact I know many photographers who have kept xxD's around just to use with it and the 10-22. As for "most people (if not all)" catching the FF bug that is an enormous exaggeration.

Sorry I'll try to be a little more literal.





I guess I need to post "LOL" after extreme exaggerations in the future. I'd hate to offend anyone else.

I am by no means offended. It was just a stretch of a comment to make and I'd hate for anyone to come away with any misconceptions.

I can see how anyone would be misled by such "factual type statement". Factual because I know EVERYONE and everyone DOES have the FF bug.


I'll remember to be more pretentious and try not to enjoy any friendly banter here. Unfortunately I still wouldn't recommend it, but that is why I have an opinion and is also the reason I didn't slam it. I gave no mis-information, I gave NO information about the lens only my opinion.


Excuse me while I go find a stick to put up my butt and take myself and my comments as serious.





PS


Original statement made because I don't know any pros who have any EF-S. Even those with crop cameras.





Disclaimer: I don't know all pros. Therefore some pros may actually have this lens.





PSS


I hear that it is a really great lens, so you make up your own mind and don't ask opinions anymore.

the 17-55 by a long shot ...it has L optics is a perft lens for your crop body .... though not L construction it is a great lens nice focal lenghth and lighter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

PS


Original statement made because I don't know any pros who have any EF-S. Even those with crop cameras.





Disclaimer: I don't know all pros. Therefore some pros may actually have this lens.





PSS


I hear that it is a really great lens, so you make up your own mind and don't ask opinions anymore.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Kieth, perhaps you read my post with malice, but that was not my intent. As for not knowing any pro's that use crop bodies--I guess I'd be one of the many you don't since I own a pair of 40D's and a 1DIII (if you count that as a crop). I am also aware of dozens of other photogs who use crop bodies in their line of work (seven of which work with me). As for owning the 17-55 I do not, although if I wasn't convinced that there was a 24-70II on the way I would. Instead I own a Tamron 17-50--for what it's used for did not call for IS or the AF speed the 17-55 offers (Studio portraiture).

Nah, I felt you were giving me hard time so I thought I'd give it back. No hard feelings.


I know lots of pros with crops.I myself have a 40D that I love. Ijust don't know any with EF-S. My point is, that doesn't mean the lens isn't pro worthy.


I personally wouldn't buy a lens that would only work on a crop. I only buy EF so I can use it on my 5D2 also. I always knew I'd get a FF so I didn't want any when the 40D was my only body.


Just me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

Nah, I felt you were giving me hard time so I thought I'd give it back. No hard feelings.


I know lots of pros with crops.I myself have a 40D that I love. Ijust don't know any with EF-S. My point is, that doesn't mean the lens isn't pro worthy.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Ah, I see. Initially I thought you meant you didnt know any pro's who use crop bodies in general. The internet is a crude method of interaction and more often than not things get misconstrued in it's impersonalness.

*group hug*

I personally use the 24-70L on my cropped body and it does a great job! I don't have a 17-55 and I have never used it, but what I can guarantee is that the 24-70L will not be a disappointment whatsoever.


Generally speakingI think the 24-70L still has an edge optically as it has less vignette and more sharpness (from what I can see). The 24-70L is weather sealed and very reliable, which isimportantfor people who will travel a lot during holidays like me. The build quality is better overall too. The 17-55 is not a cheap lens, for quite similar prices I'm sure I'll pick up the L. Plus, full frame will always be a factor for decision as it's becoming the main stream in the foreseeable future, in this case the 24-70L will just befine and the 17-55 has to go.


WHAT THIS LENS IS GOING TO BE USEDFOR will drive the decision heavily too. From my longtime inpection I found myself use 28-70mm range on 1.6x body for general purpose most of the time. I heavily use the 50-70mm range for portraiture and it works great! Certainly the 24mm is not wide on 1.6x, but it could be sufficient for you personally.


I'm by no means saying that the 17-55 is not a good one. However, I cannot imagine one feel not satisfied or think that the 17-55 can do better after getting a 24-70L.

Well guys, thanks a lot for all your comments, I appreciate it a lot.


It will be used as a general purpose lens - obviously- substituting my kit lens.


As for the 24mm not being wide enough I think it'll be for me. I love shooting landscapes with the 70-200mm, so I guess that the 24 end will fit quite well. I just need something a little less noticeable for street photography or something like that.


Maybe it'll end up overruling the 70-200, which I hope won't happen because I spent so much money for it that I'll be sad if I'll end up not using it as much ^^

Weather sealing holds no bearing on the descision since the OP does not have a 1-series body. As for the 24-70 being sharper (at comparable FL's), that is not true-- See photozone tests here and here. Build quality is, however, better with the L but the 17-55 is built very well and feels solid in construction--not to mention it weighs a half a pound less. Since the OP shoots landscapes the wide end of the lens will come in handy even though he uses the 70-200 for landscapes at times. IS is also a nice addition, specifically when shooting without a tripod in lower light.

Rather than start another post, I'll jump into this one since it has made my own debate more difficult.


I've finally convinced the boss (wife) that an upgrade from the old film SLRto a 40D is worthwhile. I just think she's reached the annoyance threshold, but whatever.


I've been debating which lens(es) to get with around a $1000lens budget and I have no problem with getting used. I know it depends on shooting style, so here it goes. We have a little guy (just turned 2 yesterday) so most of the pictures are of him. I also am an outdoorsy person, so a lot of landscape and wildlife (think deer, not birds).


So to start, I was thinking the 17-55 2.8for general use and then someday adding one of the 70-200s for the wildlife. But then I got thinking maybe a combination of the 17-40L and the 50 1.4 would give me a nice general outdoors/walkaround and a good indoors, low-light lens for pictures of the little one.


I do a lot of handholding, so would like the general use lens to have IS and my son has a motor in him, so would also like something relatively fast, but I'm pretty new to the higher end lens game, so I don't know if I would need the extra stops afforded by the 50 1.4 over the 17-55 2.8 indoors? I feel like I'm overthinking this and will be happy either way upgrading from the cheap kit lenses I'm used to, but I want the first choice to feel like the right choice.


Thanks for any input.


Travis

I like your 17-40 and 50 1.4 plan if you on a $1000 budget. You will love the 50 for shooting portraits of the youngin with available light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MVers

Weather sealing holds no bearing on the descision since the OP does not have a 1-series body. As for the 24-70 being sharper (at comparable FL's), that is not true-- See photozone tests [url="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/178-canon-ef-s-17-55mm-f28-usm-is-test-report--review?start=1]here[/url] and [url="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/184-canon-ef-24-70mm-f28-usm-l-test-report--review?start=1]here[/url]. Build quality is, however, better with the L but the 17-55 is built very well and feels solid in construction--not to mention it weighs a half a pound less. Since the OP shoots landscapes the wide end of the lens will come in handy even though he uses the 70-200 for landscapes at times. IS is also a nice addition, specifically when shooting without a tripod in lower light.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

That's very true Matt. The weather sealing for the lens as I can see will work no matter which body you use, and the 24-70L will stand against dust and moisture nicely too, though never really deliberately tried myself... When paired with 1-series body (I have a 1V-HS) it indeed gives quite a bit confidence when using in bad weathers. I used my gear in light rain for a good number of times, nothing at all has ever happened!


I would say the 17-55 is also a winner, but in the end there is one thing that will always stop me from buying one - the price. If the 17-55 is significantly cheaper, say half price, i'll get it immediately. But for almost the same price it's hard to go for a APS-C only lens and forget about the f2.8L.

Benjamin, In order to complete the weather seal one must mount the 24-70 on a weather sealed body. If that doesnt happen the lens is just almost as susceptible to dust and moisture than a non sealed lens. You may have used it in the rain, but its not something that is recommended even if you believe the lens is weather sealed on it's own. As for cost, I don't think the 17-55 is that outlandishly priced. When you look at what the lens offers I'd say its about right where it is supposed to be. Remember the 17-55 offers as much as the 24-70 as far as IQ/performance, with a touch less quality in the build department BUT offers an IS system. For someone with no solid plans to go FF and wants to get the most out of their lens there really is no better choice than the 17-55. Pair it up with the Tokina 11-16 and a 70-200/2.8 and you've got yourself one of the best crop body zoom kits made to date.


Just my .02 worth.

Travis, look into the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and an 85/1.8, 50/1.4 or Sigma 30/1.4. The 17-40 will focus quicker than the Tamron but it won't offer f/2.8 and it's not as sharp. If you want the best all around IQ/performance sub the Tamron for the 17-55 and wait until you can afford a prime--don't blow your whole load all at once.

By the way, just thought of the Tamron 17-50/2.8, which is apparently an excellent lens optically but lack of IS, FTM andbuild quality. BUT the Tamron is not even half as expensive as the Canon 17-55/2.8 for the same kid of functionality!! That's a big big deal! So I just wonder if the goal is an APS-C lens, why not the Tamron then? It actually appears sharper than the Canon and it has less vignette. (from Bryan's test)


Just my random thoughts, no offence...[:)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benjamin

By the way, just thought of the Tamron 17-50/2.8,
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Beat you to it--Read the above post ;) I actually own one and its one of the sharpest lenses I've used. BQ isn't L-grade but its solid enough for most people. The only qualm I have with it is AF speed, which is decent but not recommended for fast action in low light. It's deffinitely, if not THE, one of the biggest bang for the buck lenses out there.