17-55(50) or 24-70 on a crop body

C

chris-red

Messages
345
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm currently looking at getting a better walkabout lens also something for low light shooting such as gigs, nightclubs etc.

I've been looking at the various offerings for different manufacturers and am now trying to decide which focal length to go for 17-50(55) or 24-70, anyone have experience using these lenses on a crop body? is 24 too long for a wide end?
 
chris-red said:
I'm currently looking at getting a better walkabout lens also something for low light shooting such as gigs, nightclubs etc.

I've been looking at the various offerings for different manufacturers and am now trying to decide which focal length to go for 17-50(55) or 24-70, anyone have experience using these lenses on a crop body? is 24 too long for a wide end?
Click to expand...

Hi Chris,

I have a canon 17-55 F2.8 and love it on my 60D, I recently had the aperture ribbon replaced and it's even sharper than before. Ideally I'd like something a bit longer than 55mm at the long end but I want the width at short end and I do use it wide open. I've tried my 24-105L on my 60D and it was way too long at 24mm.

But that's just me, you will no doubt receive replies from many using 24-XXX lenses on a crop sensor that find them prefect for their style of photography.

These days the only lens that causes the 17-55 to come off the 60D is my 8mm Samyang.

Hope that helps
 
Cheers thats what I thought, I'm now debating either the sigma 17-50 or the canon 17-55, is there anything to justify the price difference?
 
Mm ? Thats a tough question and depends on the individual. Some people just prefer to buy original manufacturer lenses. On a practical level the Canon is better build quality, its IS is often noted as being better, it has full time manual focus and is easier to manual focus because it has a wider turning circle from closest focus to infinity. Most importantly Sigma have a history of quality control consistency and 'allegedly' getting a sharp copy can be a bit hit and miss (from historic accounts not from personal experience)

I did however recently change from the Sigma 10-20 to the Canon 10-22 and the Canon renders much better shots, i cannot put my finger on exactly why they just look better in colour/contrast and just seem to pop off the screen better. Not necessarily relevant just an observation.
 
chris-red said:
Cheers thats what I thought, I'm now debating either the sigma 17-50 or the canon 17-55, is there anything to justify the price difference?
Click to expand...

IMO yes.

Don't get me wrong the Tamron and Sigma 17-50's are very good lenses for the money (I used to have the Tamron non VC), but the Canon 17-55 IS is excellent. Optically it could justifiably be an L lens.

I started with the Tamron (limited funds) but eventually ended up with the Canon when funds permitted and didn't regret it one bit.
 
Last edited:
I had the 17-55 but found it to a be magnet for internal dust, underneath the rubber barrel grip the is rather large access holes which eventually let dust in, I ended up sending mine to cleaned before I sold it on... I'm using the 24-105 on a ff body and the IQ and IS is just as good, I actually prefer the colours and contrast, but do miss F2.8

I'd love the 24-70 2.8 ii just too expensive for my needs,
 
ChrisJ_SLH said:
IMO yes.

Don't get me wrong the Tamron and Sigma 17-50's are very good lenses for the money (I used to have the Tamron non VC), but the Canon 17-55 IS is excellent. Optically it could justifiably be an L lens.

I started with the Tamron (limited funds) but eventually ended up with the Canon when funds permitted and didn't regret it one bit.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this. I had the Tamron 17 - 50 non vc for 5 years & absolutely loved it but, the Canon is worth the extra money. The focus is so much faster & almost silent, my keeper rate due to focus accuracy is higher with the Canon. Also it renders images that look nicer than the Tamron although that might be subjective. The IS is a big point for me as well, although not everyone ranks it as high on their requirements.
 
The Canon 17-55 is worth every penny if you're bringing it inside and/or shooting stuff that moves.

Nine of the focus motors on the 3rd party lenses are nearly as good. But for sheer IQ it's difficult to justify the cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top