Canon 17-55mm vs 24-70mm

[fyrcat]

Hi, I am new owner of a Canon XSI, and new to digital SLRs. I purchased the XSI from costco-it came as a kit w/a 18-55mm and 55-250mm lenses. I'e played around with the kit lenses, and have started buying other lenses-better lenses. So far I have in my hands is a canon 10-22mm, and am waiting for my 70-200mm f/4Lnon IS to arrive. I am looking for a good walk around to add to my arsenal. I am a volunteer firefighter, so I need a lense on my camera for a quick shot when we first arrive to something exciting, that can capture just about anything in various lighting conditions. Since I am covered on the wide side, and the zoom side-can anyone help me on the middle??? I have read about both of these lenses...but I am torn as to which to choose from. I do like the L lense on the 24-70...help...Cathy

[Sean Setters]

I'd suggest reading the posts on this recent thread.

[Joel]

HiCathy,


I've been through same process a few months ago. Ultimatly, I picked the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L USM.


- I like the solid feeling of the 24-70. Yes, it is on the heavy side and out of balance mounted on one of those Rebels, but you feel you have some proper tools in your hands. I take care of my stuff, but its solidness is some extra reassurance.
- I'd rather have to extra focal length (compared to the kit lens) at the long than the wide end. I got the wide end covered with a 10-20 Sigma. In the time I've been using this lens I got feeling that my composition has improved because I can't simply go wide and just snap a shot.
- My next camera will be a camera with a full frame or 1.3 crop factor sensor. Optics generally hold their value well, but I don't like the 'hassle' of selling the 17-55 f/2.8 when upgrading.


I hope this helps,


Joël

[Benjamin]

It seems to be the eternal debate once again... But nevertheless, I'll try to give some thoughts on the choice.


I
owned the 24-70L for 2 years but ending up selling it. It has been a
great lens of mine and it keeps its value extremely well (made a small
profit selling it!) The images are sharp from corner to corner on full
frame. Build quality is good enough to make you believe that it can
take lots of abuse. It's water resistant too, however, its weather
sealing doesn't do much if coupled with non-weather sealed camera
bodies (Come on Canon!!). Overall I think it's a great lens to own if
you:

• Wish to have the best image quality offered by a ZOOM LENS and don't mind the cost
  
  
• Want to have a very solidly built lens despite its weight (more than 2 lbs!) and size (biger than the XSi camera itself)
• Want to get a good resell value
• Have plans of going full frame

I, as always, will not favour the 17-55 since it's almost as
expensive but it's lack of full frame capability, not as nicely made as
the 24-70L and will not keep its value very well over time. However,
there are numbers of alternatives that you can consider such as the
Tamron 17-50/2.8 II VC. The none VC version has proven itself to be as
good as the Canon 17-55 optically, now they added the VC so it
literally will work just like the Canon but for a well reduced price,
weight and size. I personally will pick one up if I want a good walk
around lens for a 1.6x camera. You can also consider prime lenses such
as the 50/1.4 since you've already have your wide angle and telephoto
range covered. IMHO a prime lens such as the 35/1.4L, 50/1.4 will do
the job well. Plus, a f1.4 is a world different than f2.8 =)

[apersson850]

From what I've seen, the EF-S 17-55 mm f/2.8 IS USM seems to hold its value pretty well.

[7dfever]

Cathy, if I were you I would go for 24-70 without any hesitation. Your wide end has been taken care of with your 10-22, and you will have a 70-200 to come. So basically what you need is the coverage for mid-range. Both 17-55 and 24-70 perform great optically. Paying some extra for the build quality of the 24-70 worth every penny you'd spend.


As I just went through the same choice-making process and I have ended up with 24-70, I can say I am happy with it!


Hope this helps!

[Colin500]

Although I haven't made the purchase yet, I too have chosen the 24-70. This does not mean that I would necessarily recommend it for everyone, however I can share how I arrived at the conclusion:


On several occasions when I used my 18-55 kit-lens I consciously limited myself to the 24+ zoom range. Although I'm on a crop camera, this never was a limitation for the pictures I'm currently shooting, however I felt constantly limited at the long end => 24-70 zoom range is fine for me and my 500D.


While the IS on the 17-55 might come in handy in some situations, one of my everyday in-door photo subjects is my daughter of three years, as anybody with kids can confirm the anti-thesis of an unmoving subject => won't miss the IS on at least one of my main subjects.


Regards, Colin

[Keith B]

I have had my 24-70 for 4 or 5 months now and I amazed more and more with every use. If I were to really stop and reflect, it in combination with my 5d MKII, would probably make me tear up. Seriously.

[fyrcat]

OK, thank you everyone for your input...I just placed an order for the 24-70. I like the L glass, and how it is built. From what I have read it will be more durable than the 17-55. I now cannot wait to get it in my hands, thanks again, Cathy

[musickna]

I'm sure you'll be very satisfied with the 24-70mm L, but I (coming late to this discussion) did make the decision a year ago to get the 17-55mm f/2.8 and I've been very happy with it indeed. Although not as strongly built as an L lens, it is not flimsy either, and has served me well in my cross-country travels.


This decision was influenced by the fact that, at the time, I was only using APS-C cameras and I already had a copy of the 24-105mm f/4 L. I wanted IS for my faster zoom, and the absence of that from the 24-70mm pushed me towards the EF-S lens. It's rumored that an IS version of the 24-70mm is in the works (and this certainly makes sense from Canon's upgrade point-of-view) and when (or if) that comes out, I'll be very interested.


As of now, I believe a combination of the 7D and the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 will leave little to be desired in terms of image quality and versatility - although you will not have the ruggedness of the L, of course.