24-70 or 17-55?

[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...[]

[Dumien]

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 ^^

[T-Rav]

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

[Keith B]

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.

[MVers]

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.