EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS or EF 24-70mm f/2.8L

**Mark Elberson** · 05-10-2009, 04:40 PM

Hey everyone,

Really quick, I am buying a f/2.8 zoom for my 50D and it's between the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 ISand theEF 24-70mm f/2.8L. I am 90% on the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS but the only reason I ask is because eventually I am going to upgrade to a full frame camera. The thing is that I can't say when I am going to upgrade so my thoughts are to buy what I need now and worry about the future later. Your thoughts???

**Sinh Nhut Nguyen** · 05-10-2009, 06:36 PM

For crop sensor the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a better choice. Crop Sensor won't go away anytime soon, you can alway sell it when you upgrade to fullframe.

**Oren** · 05-10-2009, 07:22 PM

The 17-55 is not a small lens at all... but the 24-70 is even bigger!

**Keith B** · 05-10-2009, 07:34 PM

I agree on the crop not going away. I still love my 40D, but I'd go with the 24-70.

When you get the FF, say your crop goes down for repairs then you are left with a lens that won't work on you FF.

I know that the 17-55 is great lens and you can always sell it for minimal loss butI personally just have issues with buying lenses that won't work on all my bodies.

**markcoons** · 05-10-2009, 08:50 PM

I own both as they both have their uses. I use the 17-55 as an event lens (the IS invaluable for that) and the 24-70 for portaits.

The 17-55 is not a bad walk around lens either, a little short on the 55mm side.

**Matthew Gilley** · 05-11-2009, 12:26 AM

Since you can't define when you will upgrade, I strongly recommend the 17-55.

IS is a very useful feature if you can shoot with a slow shutter speed.

17mm is noticeably wider than 24mm. In my opinion, the difference between 55 and 70 is less. Also, you can crop 55 to get 70, you cannot "uncrop" 24 to get 17.

You may consider the 24-105, but I see people on craigslist consistently asking to trade their 24-105 for a 17-55.

Ultimately, its your decision based on what you shoot. If you have a kit lens practice shooting no wider than 24.

**Daniel Browning** · 05-11-2009, 12:36 AM

If you absolutely cannot ever sell any lenses, and you will never use a backup body (i.e. keep your 50D and 17-55), then buying the 17-55 would be a mistake, because after you upgrade it will sit in the closet. On the other hand, if you are open to the idea of selling your lens (most often within 20% of what you paid for it), or cna utilize a second body in the future, then it would be far wiser to buy the 17-55.

That said, they're really not comparable at all. The closest thing to a "full frame compatible" 17-55 is the 16-35 f/2.8 or 17-40 f/4. The 24-70 is just a completely different field of view.

The 17-55 on 50D is equivalent to a 28-90 f/4.5 on full frame.
The 24-70 on 50D is equivalent to a 38-110 f/4.5 on full frame.
Going from 28mm to 38mm is very different. And going from 38mm to 24mm is even more different.

**Chris White** · 05-11-2009, 01:27 AM

I have the 50D and the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and a B+W MRC UV Filter 010 filter and it is my main shooter. I took 176 pictures inside church of my son's First Communion yesterday and 174 were keepers and 175 would have been except I took a picture of a girl who was not part of his class and did not need it. Mind you I was shooting with no flash. I highly recommend this combination if you are not able to use a flash and/or need to freeze motion. If or when I move to a full frame, I will most likely keep this as a second camera or I am sure with the way I care for it I will be able to sell it for a fair price taking into consideration all the memories I will have captured.

**George Slusher** · 05-11-2009, 04:19 AM

Some things you haven't told us that might be important:

What sort of photography will you be doing? The "better" lens for nature photography would be different from sports or portraits, etc. For nature photography, for example, I'd suggest a 100mm f/2.8 Macro ($525) plus the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS ($515, total $1040) about the same as the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS ($1030). You could even throw in the 50mm f/1.8 ($115, total $1155) and third-party hoods and still be less than the 24-70mm ($1270).
What other lenses do you have? For example, if you have the 24-105mm f/4L IS, there may not be much point in the 24-70mm f/2.8L--it's a lot of money for 1 stop plus there's no IS. If you have a 70-200mm f/4L or f/2.8L, then I'd recommend the 17-55mm lens, as it is considerably wider and you wouldn't as much need the longer focal length of the 24-70mm. If you have an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, then the 17-55mm won't buy you a lot except the f/2.8 aperture.
How wide do you want to go? On your 50D, the 24-70mm is equivalent to a 38-112mm lens on a full-frame camera. That's not very wide, at all. On the other hand, the 17-55mm is equivalent to 27-88mm, i.e., almost what the 24-80mm would be on a full-frame camera.
Why do you want an f/2.8 lens? Is it for the speed (low light, stopping action), the background blurring or ??? You could buy a series of primes for the same price that would be as fast or faster:

24mm f/2.8 $310
35mm f/2 $300
50mm f/1.8 $115
85mm f/1.8 $380
Total = $1105

If you answer those questions, the right lens might become obvious.

Another factor to consider is that, as Nhut said, the 1.6x bodies aren't going away. (They probably outsell the full-frame and 1.3x bodies by several times.) Thus, you can always get rid of the 17-55mm lens if you switch to a 5D. I paid $780 for a used 17-55mm lens, so it, like the "L" lenses, holds its value pretty well. (That was about the average price over the past several months. I've seen the lens sell for as much as $850-890.)

I have the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and would like to also get the 24-70mm f/2.8L. The reason is simple: I shoot indoor sports (horse events) where the f/2.8 aperture is very helpful. I have the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens, but the IS doesn't help a lot because of the shutter speed I need (1/400-1/800) to stop the horses' legs in motion. The 24-70mm would fit just under the 70-200mm lens, but, for wider shots, I'd still need the 17-55mm. Even then, I may have a 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8 and/or 100mm f/2 for really fast action.

When I do nature (wildlife, birds, flowers, etc.) photography, I carry a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (plus 1.4x extender, to go to 140-560mm f/6-8) and the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS. They're usually fast enough for outdoors shots. I may also have a 100mm f/2.8 Macro along, though a 77mm Canon 500D close-up lens may suffice. Sometimes, I will include a Sigma 10-20mm lens for super close-ups.

For flowers (gardens, etc), I now use the 17-55mm lens mostly because it has better image quality than the 17-85mm that I used to use. (I don't use f/2.8 very often because of the very shallow depth of field.) I usually also have the 100mm Macro & 70-200mm f/4L IS. The f/4L IS is less than half the weight of the f/2.8L IS
lens (1.6 lb vs 3.5 lbs!) and is actually "good" handheld to slower
shutter speeds because of the greatly superior IS. If I don't need the
action-stopping or background-blurring of the f/2.8 lens, why carry
that big, heavy lens around? (I had the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens for quite
a while before biting the bullet and getting the f/2.8L IS lens.)

If I'm shooting people indoors, the 17-55mm usually fits the bill, though, for available light, the 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.8 can be quite useful. For "walking around" outdoors during the day, the 17-85mm is lighter and has a longer range than the 17-55mm lens. It may be accompanied by a Sigma 10-20mm and perhaps the 70-200mm f/4L IS.

So, you may see that there's no one answer that fits everyone well.[*]

**Mark Elberson** · 05-11-2009, 12:55 PM

Thanks for all of your input. I must say that I am a bit surprised based on the vote counter. I was expecting it to be much more skewed in favor of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

To answer some of your questions:

Originally Posted by Matthew Gilley

Also, you can crop 55 to get 70, you cannot
"uncrop" 24 to get 17

great point!

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

If you absolutely cannot ever
sell any lenses, and you will never use a backup body (i.e. keep your
50D and 17-55), then buying the 17-55 would be a mistake, because after
you upgrade it will sit in the closet. On the other hand, if you are
open to the idea of selling your lens (most often within 20% of what
you paid for it), or cna utilize a second body in the future, then it
would be far wiser to buy the 17-55.

I don't mind selling a lens (I just sold my EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS on Bryan's new Buy/Sell Forum so that's why I am in the market for a f/2.8 zoom) and I hope to use my 50D as a back-up once I upgrade.