I can't decide between 17-55 and 24-70

InkZ

InkZ

Messages
332
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
No
This is the most horrible dilema :/

I've got a Sigma 10-20 and a Canon 100-400L. Just in the process of selling my 70-200 F4L cause I never use it.

Am I going to use 17-24mm when i have the 10-20, and will I miss 55-70 more than 17-24? I suppose these are questions only I can answer :/

It wouldn't be an issue if they weren't so closely priced!

My head is about to explode and it's making me want to not buy anything at all lol :bonk:

About to order a 50D as well I think, don't think I'll be going full frame any time soon, I'm not quite ready to spend 2k on a 5Dmk2.
 
I would buy 24-70 because you already have 10-20 to cover UWA. And when you go full frame (in the future) you will already have a very good quality normal zoom L lens to mount on it.
 
the 17-55 is better than the 24-70 full stop, end of problem....buy the 17-55
 
walls said:
the 17-55 is better than the 24-70 full stop, end of problem....buy the 17-55
Click to expand...

I agree. Kerso is selling this lens for £749 ATM :)
 
Both are great lenses, so choosing is really down to your needs. The focal length of the ef-s lens is considered more appropriate for crop bodies and the ef to full frame. Having said that, I used my 24-70 on my 30d and was very happy and used a 10-22 for the wide stuff.

If you go for the 17-55, maybe look for a longer prime such as the 85/f1.8 to go with it.

Graham
 
You already have an UWA so go for the 24-70. You wont regret it.
 
What are the situations you'll be using it in?

I found that when I didn't want to be changing the lens all the time (i.e. on holiday) the 24mm end was a bit restrictive when trying to get whole buildings in. I now have an 18-50 and find that the 18mm end is more versatile. Okay, I don't have the range at the other end but I can crop.

If you don't mind stopping and changing lenses when you need to then go for the 24-70.
 
Crocky said:
What makes the 17-55 better?
I am hoping to buy one of these at some point and also can't decide which one.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, the 17-55 will be more useful than the 24-70 on a crop body. It's obvious really - EF-S lenses are made for crop cameras, and EF are for full frame. This is only a benefit at shorter focal lengths, but here the benefits for the designer of not having to cover the much larger full frame format are considerable.

Apart from getting a more usable and slightly longer range for general picture taking (the difference between 17 and 24mm is massive, the difference between 55 and 70mm is not) the 17-55 is smaller and lighter than the 24-70, has IS and is cheaper. It is every bit as sharp :)

Edit: to be fair, the 17-55 is nicely made, but it's not L build quality.
 
Crocky said:
But why Poah? I have a need to know. :)
Click to expand...


focal range. used to use a 24-105 L on a 40D and while it was good I was for ever changing to and from my 10-22. getting the 17-55 changed that.

now I have a 24-70 on my 5Dmk2
 
Crocky said:
What makes the 17-55 better?
I am hoping to buy one of these at some point and also can't decide which one.
Click to expand...

The 17-55 image quality is on a par with the L but has 4 stop IS. The only thing that lets it down is build quality however, I've not heard of any falling apart. Easy choice for a crop body.
 
Well, I'm picking upa 17-55 on Tuesday. It seems to be the ideal lens for a crop sensor. If you go full frame you can getv away with a longer focal length. Besides, the 17-55 is an EF-S lans anyway. It is practically an L lens in everything but name.
 
I don't exactly love my 24-70L, but I would NEVER swap for 17-55. Why? 70mm is really short, but 55mm is nearly useless for people (except full length), or any studio work. The gap between 20-24mm is tiny. If anything, your other *real* alternative is 24-105mm IS. That is if you need IS and not f/2.8.
Also I would guess in a few years time, only rebels will support EF-S lenses. The rest will be FF.
 
daugirdas said:
I would guess in a few years time, only rebels will support EF-S lenses. The rest will be FF.
Click to expand...


That's the reason I got rid of all my ef-s lenses. Upgrading to FF in maybe 2 years time is inevitable:D (IMO of course).
 
there's no way in the foreseable future any of the manufacturers will abandon the crop format. Firstly it splits the market and creates an upgrade path so makes money, there are users who choose the crop sensor without money being a factor, and manufacturers have invested a lot in efs lenses, indeed, some of the best lenses you can buy are efs lenses. In addition, I just can't see them wanting to annoy their customers who have invested often thousands in the efs format. If you think about it, it's Just not going to happen.
 
I'd say the 24-70 as the gap between 20-24mm is a lot less than 55-100

I feel the 55-100 gap will be too big to be practical
 
Hi Inkz :)

Personally I'm going to go for the 24-70 or 105, mainly because I expect to upgrade my body to full frame in the future, and I'd like any lenses I buy from now on to be building towards that upgrade.

Of course, if you do get a 24-70 and don't like it, I'll have it off ya ;)
 
walls said:
there's no way in the foreseable future any of the manufacturers will abandon the crop format. Firstly it splits the market and creates an upgrade path so makes money, there are users who choose the crop sensor without money being a factor, and manufacturers have invested a lot in efs lenses, indeed, some of the best lenses you can buy are efs lenses. In addition, I just can't see them wanting to annoy their customers who have invested often thousands in the efs format. If you think about it, it's Just not going to happen.
Click to expand...

:agree: Absolutely.

The majority of development investment is going into crop format, and compacts. Not full frame.

If anything, full frame will become increasingly like medium format was when 35mm SLRs ruled the world, ie niche, specialist, professional, expensive.

Not that there is a great deal of evidence to support that just yet, IMHO only a hunch, but evidence of crop format being the mainstream format of the future for enthusiasts is all around us, has been for some time, and it's getting louder.

Good review here of the 17-55 2.8 here, especially for those who think EF-S lenses can't cut it with the best. Here's a good line: "This lens certainly has the image quality to be an L." In fact, it appears to be better than some :) Lots of quality reviews on this site.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
 
The 1.6 crop sensors are already beyond their optimum density point. The 50d was considered a step too far. Perhaps research into making a larger sensor cheaper might be an easier route for the manufacturers.

This decision is probably already made and we have just yet to hear about it.

Graham
 
thx for your help guys. I'm still undecided, maybe I'll hold out for something 2nd hand coming up. That way I can buy it and if I don't like it I can sell it on at no loss. :)
 
24-70L for me. I like the extra reach and have a 10-22mm to cover the wide stuff. Even 17mm won't be wide enough so you'll buy a wide angle anyway.

Plus, the red ring... :naughty:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top