Canon 17-55 or 24-70L ????

Chris Johnston

Chris Johnston

Veteran
After using the kit lens for a while now on my T2i, I'm thinking of getting some better glass.

A really like the 2.8 through the barrel aspect of both lens' (one thing I hated about the kit lens)

Both lens' are expensive (IMO) but I think I would rather get something that I will use a lot that has a good picture. and the zoom range is about what I am looking for on both lens' (not really sure but I think 24 will be wide enough)

I have never used either lens but all the reviews on BH seem to indicate both are fairly good lens and only a few "unhappy campers" with the 17-55.

I think I would like the focus on the end of the lens more. (24-70)

but I guess my question is ....has anyone used both and is the 24-70L worth the extra $330???
and is the throw on focus long(er) on both lens? (I could find anything either way on any of the reviews???)

EDIT:
PS I also have a nifty fifty and some big Nikkor ED glass (50-300) but I'm looking for something that will stay on the cam 90% of the time....
 
I have used both, and the 17-55mm is the one I kept. On the 7D, it is THE perfect walk-around lens range, and the image stabilization is a great asset when shooting handheld.

I can't speak specifically for the focus throw, sorry.
 
Thanks for responding Stephen, Was there areason you didn't like the 24-70 over the 17-55?
Cost? Zoom range? You mentioned the IS as being a factor, don't they both have IS?
 
If you might be upgrading to the 5d or 1d anytime soon, the 24-70 is a better option, and the build quality is much better, although it is also heavier which is a drawback. On the 7d though I would go for 17-55 for the IS and the much wider field of view.
 
What about the picture quality alone?

All other pros and cons aside, which lens produces the better image?

ps: And how does the image compare to a prime, like, say, the Sigma 30mm.

Thanks.
 
Well, with both lenses, you're essentially looking at the best of what Canon has to offer. And the differences in image quality between the two will be near zero. The 24-70L is weather-sealed, as all the L lenses are, while the 17-55 is not. I haven't found this to be a big deal in real-world shooting.

The two big keys for choosing between these lenses are…

A) Do you need image stabilization? If so, get the 17-55.
B) Do you mind giving up a little at the wide end to get a little more telephoto? If not, get the 24-70L.
 
I am picking up a second hand 17-55 2.8 IS tomorrow and will sell my 17-40 F4L right away after. Get the lens designed for the camera you have now. It will serve you better.

This is a complete 180 for me. I have been shooting this lens that is a little too slow and not quite long enough (no IS too) for almost a year waiting on the 5Diii and it is too annoying.
 
The 24-70L series is a much better glass and is very popular amongst photographers. I'd recommend it but really it depends on what you are using it for. IS isn't really necessary on a wide angle any ways.

www.corybrake.com
 
The 24-105 f/4 has IQ on par with the 24-70 and has IS. FYI, Canon's 50mm f/1.4's IQ is also just as good as the 24-70 at 50mm. However, I have found that its build quality leaves much to be desired.
 
I just got the 17-55 and I can't beleive I waited so long! You really need the extra on the wide end with aps-c, so I would say unless you are going full freame very soon, go 17-55
 
16-35 2.8L. On the 7d, it is basically what the 24-70 2.8L is on a full-frame. I used to own the 16-35 when i had the 5d MK I. I traded it for the 24-70 because I was being a photographer.... and not shooting landscapes. I love what the 24-70 did on the full frame, but now that I am a filmmaker and not a photographer, and now that I have a 7d and not a 5d Mk2 (traded my 5d for the 7d at no cost =) i really miss the wide I could get. I would suggest that it might be said that the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 (all 2.8Ls) would be the only lenses you need. Depending on what you're going to do.

Speaking of the 16-35, why do we never hear about it? we hear about the 11-16 tokina and the 24-70 2.8L all the time, but the middle-child keeps being neglected....
 
suicdekng said:
Speaking of the 16-35, why do we never hear about it? we hear about the 11-16 tokina and the 24-70 2.8L all the time, but the middle-child keeps being neglected....
Click to expand...

An 82mm filter size coupled with a high price tag make it difficult to choose over those lenses or the 17-40, unless you really need 2.8.
 
Got to play around with the 17-55mm lens today for my 550d. It is indeed SHARP and on par with a lot of the "L" series lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top