Canon 17-55 is, 17-40L or 24-105L IS

scottduffy

scottduffy

Messages
3,348
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
I am hopefully going to buy one of these lenses when i am in America next month and i was wondering which one would be best as a wedding lens. I get asked quite a bit to do friends weddings and friends of friends weddings and always say no as i don't have the equipment to do it. I was thinking of doing a bit more just as favours to friends so i thought one of these lenses would come in handy. It will be paired up with either a 40d or 450d and 430 ex mk2. Any advice on the image quality of the three v each other would be appreciated. I am not pretending to be a pro wedding tog so i don't need advice on the wedding side of it just the lenses please. Thanks in advance guys.
 
i've never shot a wedding but i imagine you're going to need some reach and low light capabilities - with which IS will help so i would disregard the 17-40 straight away
 
Hi I have just had the same issue although not for a wedding, I have gone for the 17-55mm as I tried the 24mm and for me on a crop body it was just not a wide enough start. I would imagine if it is purely for weddings you may need the extra reach so you are not intrusive but would you get a good crowd shot at 24?
 
The wedding i have been asked to do is only 16 guests so i won't really need too much reach. To be honest i would have preferred the 24-70L but i can't afford it.
 
Hi,

When used with a full frame camera, the 24-105mm IS lens has often been regarded as the perfect wedding lens.

On a crop camera, the 17-55mm would be a very good companion for use as a sole lens for weddings - with it being a F2.8 lens with IS is the reason that most people recommend fast lenses is in case you have to take shots in low light situations without flash.

At a later stage, it would be good to add something like a 70-200mm for those candid shots.

You could always consider hiring in a 24-70mm lens?
 
17-55. No contest IMHO.
 
1.6 = 17-55, FF = 24-105!

Phil
 
Can't comment on wedding use but my 17-40 is an amazing and sharp lens. One of my best lenses.

Andy S
 
I've had all 3 of those lenses and the only one I still have is the 17-55. Very impressive lens on a crop body and great zoom range for a "standard" lens. Image quality is excellent.
 
The general trend seems to be towards FF camera bodies, so just based upon that, I'd avoid the 17-55, regardless of how good it is, as it won't work on any FF or 1.3 crop bodies. Personally I'd go with the 17-40 and an 85mm F1.8. The 17-40 is a brilliant lens and IMO has slightly better IQ than the 24-105 (I've owned a 17-40 and presently have the 24-105). That would sort out your wide angle shots. The 85mm with it's wider aperture can then deal with the low DOF portrait shots.
 
If you don't see yourself going FF soon, the 17-55 every time.

Even if you are, you'll be able to sell the 17-55 with very little loss.

If you are considering going FF and want to avoid selling to buy again then i comes down to what is more important to you, the extra stop or the extra reach and IS.

For me it is the latter, 70 on FF is just to short for me as a general purpose lens.

Optically, the 24-70 and 24-105 are within a gnats whisker of each other in practical terms.
 
If a lot of your shooting is indoors at the wedding (find out about the venue!) then you will want an f2.8 lens. I would not worry too much about the 17-55 being an ef-s lens if you don't plan to go ff for a while (or at all!) and would think its range is more useful than the 17-40. Going up to 55mm on a crop should enable you to do portraits in a more flattering way than the 40mm.

Have you considered a tamron or sigma 2*-70?
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
The general trend seems to be towards FF camera bodies, so just based upon that, I'd avoid the 17-55, regardless of how good it is, as it won't work on any FF or 1.3 crop bodies. Personally I'd go with the 17-40 and an 85mm F1.8. The 17-40 is a brilliant lens and IMO has slightly better IQ than the 24-105 (I've owned a 17-40 and presently have the 24-105). That would sort out your wide angle shots. The 85mm with it's wider aperture can then deal with the low DOF portrait shots.
Click to expand...

Thats terrible advice (no offence)! Why is the 'general trend' towards FF bodies? IMO the main advantage for bigger sensors is towards landscape photography, a crop with a 17-55 IS would be an ideal, near perfect lens / body combo for weddings in all situations. Tom's shot above shows just how good the combo is, why would you need a full frame body to better that?

And as already stated, in the very rare event the OP ever goes full frame, he would almost certainly be able to sell it for very little loss.
 
On a crop body, definitely the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, it is a very useful focal range, and goes wide enough for group shots, has superb IQ, is constant f/2.8 and has IS. It's a perfect lens made for the crop body. It is basically like a 24-70 f/2.8 on FF, except specifically made for a crop body instead of FF, and also has added IS.

I haven't owned either of the other 2 lenses, but I would never be without my 17-55 as long as I have a crop body, as I find far too much use for the 17-24mm focal range, and love the f/2.8!
 
17-55IS hands down ;)

only consideration is if you want weathersealing go for the 17-40 but it'd be crap at a wedding (well if theres low light involved)

24mm is too long on crop in my book
 
+1 for the 17-55. Had both the 17-40 and the 24-105.
The 17-40 was too slow being both f4 and missing IS and the 24-105 not wide enough, even though the IS helped the f4 max aperture.
 
odd jim said:
Thats terrible advice (no offence)! Why is the 'general trend' towards FF bodies? IMO the main advantage for bigger sensors is towards landscape photography, a crop with a 17-55 IS would be an ideal, near perfect lens / body combo for weddings in all situations. Tom's shot above shows just how good the combo is, why would you need a full frame body to better that?

And as already stated, in the very rare event the OP ever goes full frame, he would almost certainly be able to sell it for very little loss.
Click to expand...

Think about this.
Nikon have thrown down the gauntlet with the D3/D700 (and their variants) and pretty much any Nikon owner would probably like one or the other, at least if they could afford it.
Canon, Sony et al are not simply going to ignore that. The result is almost certainly going to be additional competition in the full frame arena and as a result of competition, I'd expect for their to be a lowering of prices.
Let me put is this way, imagine you are a general purpose user and the prices of FF and crop cameras were the same, what would you chose?

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that there is a place for crop cameras, but that's mainly if you want reach (e.g. motorsport and wildlife).
Excluding reach, FF cameras as we know tend to have better ISO capability and thinner DOF, so there are definite advantages to them.

Any if that does happen, just what's going to happen to the value of the EFs lenses at that point?

So I stand by statement that whilst the 17-55 may well be a brilliant lens, that in not that many years, it's value is going to drop through the floor as the kind of people with the money to buy one move more to FF.
 
So everyone will be buying very expensive full frame bodies? I don't think so. People will put much more money into lenses than they will bodies. You still get great photos from a crop and that will be improved by better lenses. You arguement that full frame cameras are what everyone wants doesn't hold, they may not want them or not be able to afford them!

Look around here and see how many people are using expensive lenses on crop bodies and also how many people are still buying crop bodies!

The majority of advice here stands and is most likely correct- the 17-55 would be best.
 
menthel said:
So everyone will be buying very expensive full frame bodies? I don't think so. People will put much more money into lenses than they will bodies. You still get great photos from a crop and that will be improved by better lenses. You arguement that full frame cameras are what everyone wants doesn't hold, they may not want them or not be able to afford them!

Look around here and see how many people are using expensive lenses on crop bodies and also how many people are still buying crop bodies!

The majority of advice here stands and is most likely correct- the 17-55 would be best.
Click to expand...

Could I please ask that before you reply, that you actually read my post.

At the present time, I agree that FF cameras are prohibitively expensive. My point is that I believe that the price difference will mostly erode over the next few years. As we move towards that, my expectation is that the type of enthusiast willing to pay for the 17-55 is likely to jump ship and offload his EFs lenses, thus depressing the value of the lens.

So whilst the 17-55 does make a great lens on a crop, at least one of us feels obliged to point out the potential implications on the future value of the lens.
Do remember that in lens terms, lifespans are measured potentially into decades.
 
Mr_Sukebe said:
Could I please ask that before you reply, that you actually read my post.

At the present time, I agree that FF cameras are prohibitively expensive. My point is that I believe that the price difference will mostly erode over the next few years. As we move towards that, my expectation is that the type of enthusiast willing to pay for the 17-55 is likely to jump ship and offload his EFs lenses, thus depressing the value of the lens.

So whilst the 17-55 does make a great lens on a crop, at least one of us feels obliged to point out the potential implications on the future value of the lens.
Do remember that in lens terms, lifespans are measured potentially into decades.
Click to expand...

I read it and still feel that the advice is not correct for the purchaser and the reason required. The 17-55 is f2.8, gives him a good focal length for groups and portraits and will keep its value well, as I stated before, people will spend much more on lenses than the bodies, so I don't see it being ef-s as a problem.

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree! ;)
 
I'm with Menthel, I have no desire to upgrade to an FF for a LONG time yet. I still think the full frame digital SLR is somewhat a niche market, because far fewer of them exist than crops. When it was 35mm, that was all you got. I really don't see a massive advantage to full frame, proportionate to the current prices either. Crop sensor cameras still have very wide angled lenses, we can do telephoto easier, and providing the sensor doesn't have three billion megapixels on it, noise levels are great, considering. They are also lighter, and smaller.
 
I disagree with Mr Sukebe too. And I say that having just spent a lot of money upgrading to a full frame 5D2.

I see no prospect of full frame ever becoming cheaper or very popular. In fact I think it will become more niche and high-end. Most of the development money is going in just the opposite direction, into Micro 4/3rds format (smaller than crop format) and phone-cameras. As for competition in the full frame market, Sony pitched the excellent A900 against Canon/Nikon and seem to have got nowhere. Then they put out the cut-price A850, to a complete lack of applause. You can also get a used 5D now for very affordable money but it still remains niche. Full frame is the new medium format, and that never really caught on when set against 35mm film, even though the quality advanatge was very substantial - just too many other disadvantages, but mainly cost.

With crop format, I think the combined appeal of much lower cost and the long lens effective reach thing are very compelling arguments in favour of the crop format, plus a big weight advantage especially with long lenses. The point about less depth of field with full frame cuts both ways, and personally I generally prefer a bit more rather than less, but it's moot really.

I went for full frame because the quality is better. Not by much, and crop cameras are really superb these days, but full frame is better in terms of image quality if that is your number one priority. Always will be, even though the gap seems to be narrowing. That aspect aside, and of course it is a big one, I think full frame is nothing but a disadvantage. In selling my 40D and EF-S lenses, I've lost a lot of reach, which realistically I can only get back by hiring mega-expensive primes as and when. I've also lost the superb AF and fast frame rate that I could have got with a 7D body upgrade, and that would have saved me about £600. That's a lot on money just on a body, and of course lower down the range there are excellent crop format cameras for a fraction of the price of full frame - 50D and D90 for example.

Then there is the cost of selling stuff if you want to upgrade later. If you buy good quality kit, and you buy it well, you don't lose much. I was quite pleased with what I got for my 40D (that is really a brilliant used bargain these days - superb camera, with minters going for under £400) and especially my EF-S lenses - 10-22 and 17-55 2.8 that held their value very well. And whoever bought them will be able to sell them on again at pretty much what they paid me for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top