Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM vs. EF-S 18-55mm f/2.8

[ryantelford]

I am looking to purchase an all around lens. I shoot mainly weddings and sporting events on the side. I have read reviews on both of these lenses and have concluded they both are good overall. But, some people say the 24-70mm has focusing problems.Has anyone else had that problem?


Some also say the 18-55mm isn't built very well and has problems with getting dirt inside.


I'm willing to spend the money for a good lens. Would it make much of a difference which one I bought? I understand I could get more wide angle with the 18-55mm but have heard some people say the 24-70mm is the best lens Canon has ever built.


Is it pretty much a wash between the two?

[mbaltrusitis]

Canon might be releasing a IS version of the 24-70 this week so sit tight.

[Keith B]

Do you mean the 17-55 2.8 IS?


I can only speak of the 24-70. It has become my most used and beloved lens due to it's image quality and versatility. The images are very sharp. The colors are great. In very low light it will search a bit if you aren't using the center focus sensor, but I think it actually better than my 70-200 2.8 IS. I couldn't say if it is the best lens Canon has ever built, but if someone said that it was the best zoom I wouldn't argue. I've said many times before, I do not miss or crave IS in this lens. I think I'm a pretty steady shot and this lens, albeit heavy it is a very easily balanced lens.

[btaylor]

Keith,


do you shoot full frame or crop sensor? I'm interested to know how the 24-70mm is on a crop and if you think there is benefit to the 17-55mm by allowing you to shoot that bit wider. I have plans to go FF in the future so at the moment my next purchase is likely to be the 24-70mm. (And if they do release one with IS... that will definately be on the cards)


Thanks in advance,


Ben.

[Keith B]

I shoot it on my 5DmkII almost exclusively. My 40D usually only sees my tele zooms these days. If you are planning on going FF I'd say go with the 24-70. It is so nice on FF. I find most of my shots are between 30 and 60 when I review the EXIF.


It will be be kind of tight on a crop though but very usable.

[MikeWhy]

Ryan, you probably mean the 17-55/2.8 IS, not the 18-55 kit lens. I don't think the two are even comparable. If you can afford the price difference, don't mind 2+ lbs of lens, and won't miss the IS, the 24-70/2.8L would be the better buy. I have and am quite pleased with the 17-55, but my needs and use are probably quite different from yours. For sporting events, I feel my 24-105 is often too short. I'm assuming you shoot a 1.6x crop body, since you mention the EF-S lens.

[ryantelford]

You are right about the 17-55mm and not the 18-55. Good catch. I would mainly use this for weddings and portraits and not for sporting events.


Actually, I shoot a 30d now but am looking to upgrade to either a 7d or 5dII. The FF of the 5d would be nice but it's another $1000.


Thank you.

[Colin]

I would lean toward the lens that fits the body you're going to be using. 17-55 for the crop, 24-70 for the full frame.


I also keep the crop body mostly for telephoto and macro (and only some macro), as well as high frame rate requirements.


FF will let you get the most out of an EF lens. If you're doing standard field of view or wide, an EF-S series is simply more cost-effective for a given amount of performance. With an EF lens on a crop body, you're tossing more than half of the image away before it even gets to the sensor.

[neuroanatomist]

FF will let you get the most out of an EF lens...With an EF lens on a crop body, you're tossing more than half of the image away before it even gets to the sensor.

FF will let you get the most out of an EF lens - butmore isn't always better. The parts of the image circle that you're 'tossing' (cropping) away are the regions where lenses suffer the most from spherical and chromatic aberrations. Sharpness and CA are always better in the center than at the borders, and optical vignetting affects the edges, by definition. When using an EF lens on a crop body, you're shooting in the 'sweet spot' of the lens.


Inryantelford's case, it's the effect of the crop factor on angle of view that's the bigger issue, IMO. 24mm on a crop body is 'normal,' not wide-angle, and that will likely be a problem unless a wider lens is also available (which is also problematic, since switching lenses during a wedding wastes time and misses shots). "Pro' wedding photographers will usually have two bodies, one being a FF (e.g. 5DII) with a 24-70mm f/2.8L, and the other being either a FF or a crop body with a 70-200mm L-zoom. They'll also have a 16-35mm f/2.8L for tight or wide shots with the FF body (dressing rooms, the church before the ceremony, etc.).

[lofty]

I have the 17-55 IS on a 40D and i am very happy with the build quality (among the best of their non-L series lenses) and with the image quality, and for weddings i will use this lens and the 70-200 f2.8.


My recommendation is to decide based on which camera you will be using for the next few years. If you stay with the 30D, or upgrade to 50D or 7D, then I would say that you're going to be happy with the 17-55mm IS f2.8. The 1.6x crop factor give you an effective range of 27-88mm.


If you are planning to upgrade to a 5D or 1D, then definitely go for the 24-70mm.