24-70 or 17-55?

[Dumien]

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 ^^

[Mark Elberson]

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!

[MVers]

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.

[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.

[MVers]

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.

[Keith B]

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.

[MVers]

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.

[Keith B]

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.

[Benjamin]

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.

[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 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.