Is the Canon 17-55mm lens considered the sharpest lens canon makes under 100mm?

[vision_filmz]

The 24-70 is an absoltely great lens. You can find one used for around $1,200 or so.

If I had to live with one lens forever, that would be it! The new version is supposed to be fantastic, but it hasn't shipped yet, and is about $2,300.

I also have the 17-40 4.0. It is a very good quality lens, and the constant 4.0 is good. Variable aperature can be a pain if you have to zoom at wide open.

The 16-35 2.8 is probably better than the 17-40, I have never had a chance to test one. In fact I have almost always shot full frame, and have barely used the 17-40 in the 5 years or so that I have owned it.

I do really like the 2.8 zooms for the viewfinder brightness, even if I don't use them wide open.

Michael

This is why opinions are just that, opinions...... Having used the 24-70mm lens I actually hate it & think it's a waste of money. Big for nothing and honestly no better in video quality than even the kit lens zoom. This is the main reason now why I use primes.

I love my Sigma 28mm lens to death as well as my tokina 11-16mm. I recently bought a Rokinon 85mm and I must say that the beauty of that lens is breathtaking.

[c3hammer]

I'll agree that the 24-70 L is one of my least favorite lenses.

[Baddgsx]

I just pulled the trigger on the 17-55mm f2.8. Ooops!!! Lol

[ROCKMORE]

for video it doesn't matter at all.

Wrong.