I just bought both and they are brilliant on my 450D. 24-70 will work nicely with your 7D ( my next dream) and I don't think dust is going to be an issue on the 17-55. Good luck choosing.
I don't have any 24-70, but use both the EF-S 17-55 mm f/2.8 IS USM and the EF 24-105 mm f/4L IS USM on my 40D and 7D cameras.
i have the 24-70L but honestly think that the 24-105L is so muchsharper than the 24-70L. the 17-55mm on a x1.6 is IMO more sharp than the 24-70 as well.
-e
Thanks all for your inputs. Appreciated!
So I ended up visiting Canon Customer Service Center, where I could test both lenses myself.
Many of you have stated before, both lenses are as good in terms of sharpness and IQ. In my test case with a 50D body, I noticed that 24-70 performed slightly better. And to take the build quality into consideration,even the Canon staff admitted that dust collect might be a potential issue for the EF-S lens, so now I am more leaning towards the 24-70.
In terms of range coverage, a wide angle such as EF-S 10-22 might be needed to compensate 24-70's insufficiency.
Thank you all again!
7dfever,
Sorry for the late reply, but I own both lenses and I thought I could offer some perspective.
The 24-70 (mine anyway) is an amazing lens...but it's flat-out not wide enough on a 1.6 crop body. It even feels a little long on a 1.3 crop body.
The 17-55 is also an amazing lens, probably a little overpriced but since it loses its value faster than an L lens, why not buy it used? Mine has a couple of dust specks after 2 years, but no big whoop. The thing is very sharp, even wide open, and the IS works amazingly well. Who cares if it's not built like a tank? Neither is your 7D.
Unless you see yourself buying the 10-22 as well, I think you'll find the 24-70 isn't wide enough. If you're worried about it now (and you said you are) chances are it will be a problem for you.
One other point that I didn't see mentioned: the 17-55's zoom ring is in the front, while the focus ring is closer to the camera body. The 24-70's zoom ring is closer to the camera body, while the focus ring is at the front of the lens. If you have a preference, pay attention to the difference in control placement before you decide.
Well, I'll join this discussion late as well. While I've never owned or held the 24-70 f/2.8, these are the lenses I do own:
10-22 f/3.5-4.5
17-55 f/2.8 IS
35mm f/2
50mm f/1.4
70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
I primarily shoot with a 50D. The 17-55mm lens is the most versatile tool in my bag. It stays on my camera 3X as much as any other lens I own. No, it isn't built like an "L" lens, but the image quality is certainly "L" quality, in my opinion. If you plan on staying with a crop body for a while, I'd advise going with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS because it's the perfect general purpose lens. If you plan on upgrading to a full-frame body within the next two years, then I'd suggest buying the 24-70mm f/2.8 L.
If you want to see examples of my 17-55 examples, click here.
Thanks again for those who've chipped in and offered your advices.
As said above, I have taken the 24-70 for its build quality and less depreciation in the way onwards. I have to admit that the range is a bit long especially on my 1.6 crop body.10-22 will be consideredwhen it comes to be required for landscape shooting (not this year, cuz no more budget :P).
So far the 24-70 hasn't disappointed me. Its outdoor performance is great (image quality and color saturation/contrast). It performs as well as my 70-200 F4 IS USM. For indoor, the large aperture does help. It actually does better than my previously owned Sigma 30mm 1.4 HSM.
I was worried about its heavy weight. But it turns out not as bad as I imagined.
Today I am going out with kids to do some stress test with the lens. I will see how it goes!
24-70 Lhas a soft image. 24-105 L is preferred for me
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Win32)" />
<style type="text/css"]
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
</style>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"]I think you made the best choice with
your lens purchase. The L series lenses hold their value very
well where you can always turn around and sell them at any moment if
needed. Like I mentioned earlier in this post my 17-55 IS lens sucked in the dust.
The dust was not effecting the image quality but is was very
upsetting to see my 1000 dollars plus lens do this. I had to
have mine cleaned by Canon twice and then the third time I did it
myself. Read how to do it on-line where it was simple to take apart and clean. Some
people feel that the efs 17-55 lens won't collect dust but if you shoot
outdoors in dusty conditions for hours on end it will inevitably
happen.
Originally Posted by SupraSonic
The ISO 12233 test shots on this site show that the 24-70 is sharper than the 24-105 when both are at f/4.