24-70 or 17-55?

[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.

[Benjamin]

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.

[MVers]

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.

[Benjamin]

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...[]

[MVers]

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.