Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · Which would you do?
  
 
Michael White
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Which would you do?


I'm wondering if keeping the 17-55 and 24-70 is basically redundant or is it wise. I'm plan on adding the two bottom lenses eventually but my next lens will be the 100-400.

I'm in a place were if I sell the 17-55 I can use that funds to get one of the bottom two lenses whith chance left over. I know all of the lenses are good and have their place. But if you have both the 17-55 and 24-70 do you use both and what for.



Jan 28, 2013 at 12:40 PM
ggOk
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Which would you do?


what do you use the 17-55 for?

/r
Andy



Jan 28, 2013 at 12:44 PM
reno.peterson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Which would you do?


The 17-55 f/2.8 IS will be in my kit as long as I have a 1.6x body, and as long as I have a17-55 f/2.8 IS, I'll have a 1.6x body in my kit. I've used all the lenses you've got in your poll, and the longest owned was a 24-105 f/4L IS before I got my 17-55 IS. It was a great lens, and covers a nice range, but you'll most likely miss that additional 7mm on the wide end quite a bit. In this poll I chose your last option as I wouldn't have any more use for wither 24-70/104 that I do my 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Adding the EF-s 10-22 UWA is a great idea if you find yourself needing "new perspectives".

Also, if you use your 17-55 f/2.8 IS a lot @ f/2.8 the the F/4 lens is going to bump up your ISO or have you using more ancillary lighting options. And if you go the 24-70 f/2.8L, you may miss the capability of the IS function on the EF-s lens.

Just my $.02 !!! FWIW...



Jan 28, 2013 at 01:11 PM
Ian.Dobinson
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Which would you do?


Reno held a gun to my head until i finally caved in and bought the 17-55 . and i hae to say that despite my resistance it was a great choice.

I too was under the impression that my lens set of 12-24/4 24-105L 80-200L and/or 100-400 (i never had both in the bag at the same time) was the ideal setup for me. I hardly ever used the 12-24 (and when I did it was at the widest)
but the 24-105L never really did the busniess for me on the 7D (seemed better on my 40D) while the 17-55 really shines on it .

So I would (personally) keep the 17-55 and add the 11-16 (or 8-16 for real wide) plus one of the 70-200's at the long end .

just my 2p



Jan 28, 2013 at 02:18 PM
Paulthelefty
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Which would you do?


I rented a 17-55, and I found it too short in too many situations when shooting indoor sports. Paired with a 70-200 on a second crop body, I thought the missing 15 mm would be no big deal. What I found was 70 was just a bit too tight for closer shots, and many times 55 was not quite enough as the action moved. I also felt the build quality was lacking, but it was a rental... My analysis based on my needs is that I would be better served by a 24-70. But I already have a 10-22, so there ya go!

Paul



Jan 28, 2013 at 02:36 PM
rebelshooter
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Which would you do?


Keep the 17-55, sell the 24-70 and use the funds for whichever you feel the most need for. 24 is not wide on a crop and the 17-55 is (so I hear) a phenomenal lens.
Now if you are planning on going FF, sell the 17-55 and use those funds to make your purchases.
1.6 = 17mm
FF = 24mm

Good luck with you decision.



Jan 28, 2013 at 02:40 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



GammyKnee
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Which would you do?


Unless you truly find that the 17-55 range doesn't cut it for you, I think you'd be wise to keep it as long as you've got a crop body. I lost money by selling then eventually rebuying a 17-55. If that range works for you then there's nothing else to touch it.

But what to do about the 24-70..? No IS, only slightly wider than standard on crop, and not much longer than the 17-55. It seems redundant on crop if you have the 17-55. But if you have any leanings towards FF, chances are you're going to really want that 24-70 in the future.

So.. if you can keep both, I'd be inclined to do so.



Jan 28, 2013 at 03:04 PM
jasonpatrick
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Which would you do?


I'd dump the 24-70 simply because it doesn't have IS and your 17-55 does. Optically, you'd be splitting hairs (maybe leaning toward the 17-55). Build would probably go to the 24-70.

I don't know how you shoot, so it's hard to comment on the "range" argument, but 17 on the crop does make more sense for a walk around type lens. The 24-70 on a crop makes a lot of sense for the portrait range though. You can get full body on the wide end and a nice close head and shoulders on the long end. I doubt you'd miss 55-70 range if you went to one of the 70-200mm's later on.

If you buy used, and are a bit careful, you can buy and sell lenses for a wash. I wouldn't be inclined to worry about going full frame further down the line if the tool you need right now is for a crop camera.



Jan 28, 2013 at 04:02 PM
StillFingerz
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Which would you do?


It seems the odd lens in your list is the 10-22, all others are pretty much wide to short telephoto. The 10-22 is a fantastic lens, covers 16-35 in FF, it's distortion is well corrected and fairly easy to manage in post. There's no doubt on a crop body it is one of the best ultra-wide to wide zooms on the market. And with your 17-55, even with the small overlap, would make a great addition to your kit...IMHO

I shoot film and used the 20-35 for years, was quite happy as my skills below 20mm simply sucked. But after getting the 10-22 and discovering the ultra-wide's benefits it became clear that I could also successfully use a FOV below 20mm. Looking at the price tag on a 16-35, I turned to the 17-40L; for film duties, and it makes for a usable walkabout wide-to-normal zoom, shorter then your 17-55, but quite usable, so keep your 17-55.

In near 40yrs of shooting the walkaround zoom hasn't been used as much as the ends of the ultra-wide to medium telephoto FOV. My typical day bag has an ultra-wide zoom, 100 macro and 70-200 zoom. Fast 28, 50 and 85 primes are added when required.

I do quite often carry an old, much used, canon 24-85. It was stuck on one of my EOS-3 film bodies for years and gets a digital workout when out on a casual day shoot. Sometimes those mid range 'do it all' zooms are extremely helpful. It's a USM f3.5-4.5 zoom that's near the same size as the 85 f1.8, and is quite handy to have around.

I don't do a lot of low-light/night shooting so fast f2.8 lenses are not usually required. Since 07 I've shot digital crop bodies exclusively, but will add FF; the 6D, this year. Even though FF is my ultimate goal, I don't see myself without a crop body and that's why the 10-22 was an easy decision. It's the only EF-S lens I ever see buying as all the other EF lenses cover everything else I need.

As others have said use what you need today. Lenses don't depreciate that much, resale for the higher-end EF-S lenses is a good bet. Even a few hundred dollar loss is no more then what a rental fee would be.

I'd add a used 10-22 to your kit, shoot with it for 6 months to a year, then look back at the shots you took and determine if the ultra-wide FOV filled a gap you really needed. Then look at your least used lens; Lightroom has a great FL/Lens search feature, and if it didn't produce any or only a few keepers, sell it if you can do without it.

Best of luck on your lens choices...
Jerry

Edited on Jan 28, 2013 at 05:53 PM · View previous versions



Jan 28, 2013 at 05:21 PM
dlodi
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Which would you do?


reno.peterson wrote:
The 17-55 f/2.8 IS will be in my kit as long as I have a 1.6x body, and as long as I have a17-55 f/2.8 IS, I'll have a 1.6x body in my kit. I've used all the lenses you've got in your poll, and the longest owned was a 24-105 f/4L IS before I got my 17-55 IS. It was a great lens, and covers a nice range, but you'll most likely miss that additional 7mm on the wide end quite a bit. In this poll I chose your last option as I wouldn't have any more use for
...Show more

My sentiments exactly. The 24-105 was one of the first lenses I got for my 7D. It was my go-to lens for a long time. I thought I needed the longer range on a mid-zoom. Once I got the 17-55 I realized it covered the bulk of my shooting for a mid-zoom. I never put the 24-105 back on my camera after the 17-55 showed up. I found the 24-105 much more useful on my 5D3. You will definitely find yourself looking for different lighting option, which isn't bad. Consider a used copy if you decide to give it a try. You should be able to pick one up for +/- $700.



Jan 28, 2013 at 05:46 PM
gocolts
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Which would you do?


You can typically crop a picture to make up the difference between 55mm & 70mm. You can't crop your way from 24mm to 17mm. So-I'd sell the 24-70L and get whatever else you need. I sold my 24-70L which I used on my 7D for the same reason.

Now- if you NEVER find that the range of 17-24mm is being used for what you shoot, than it's a different story.



Jan 28, 2013 at 06:03 PM
Michael White
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Which would you do?


Thanks for the responses. I think I've made my mind up on what to do. I'm keeping both for the next year or so that with the 70-200 f2.8 IS that I have. That plus the plans to get a 100-400l next month then later the other two lenses posted above, then maybe a ff body to put everything to use.


Jan 29, 2013 at 07:12 AM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password