I currently have a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 for my 60D, and long story short, I hate it. I want to upgrade to a nicer lens, and I've decided on buying a Canon 24-70 f2.8L. However, I'm slightly concerned due to the fact that I'd be going from 17 to 24 at the widest. What are peoples experiences with the 24-70 on a smaller sensor? Do you find it wide enough for most of the time?
Only you will be able to answer that question, try 24mm yourself. Half will say it's definitely not wide enough, and the other half will say yes it is I love it.
I use a 24-105 most of the time on my crop body. Most of the time I find it fine but I would not want it as my only widest lens so I have a 12-24 as well. But actually I find my least used focal lengths are 16-23 so the setup is fine for me.
I know if I replaced the 24-105 with a 17-55 (I would love the 2.8 and IS though) I would hit the long end most of the time.
Ok, thanks for the help everyone! I suppose you're all right, only I can decide. I'm going to try shooting at 24 on my Sigma. Also my boss has a 24-70 and he said I could borrow it for a few days to see how I like it. So that would be good. I've looked at the 17-55 f/2.8, but I've just heard that the Canon L lenses have much better IQ, and plus having a lens that goes as far as 70 would be nice. Plus eventually I'm going to upgrade to a FF.
Probably depends on your needs....I do studio (fashion etc) shoots with a 17 - 40L on a crop body and it is ideal for full length to torso shots in the relatively limited space available. I'm sure there are better options out there...but the models are very happy with the results and so am I until such time as I have money to burn!!
I also like it for landscape...on both my crop and FF body. In fact it is my most used lens just now.
I notice that you have a 17 - 50 but don't like it,,,you don't say why. It probably doesn't have the sheer IQ of the Canon L but has a better range.
adamvk1 wrote:
I've looked at the 17-55 f/2.8, but I've just heard that the Canon L lenses have much better IQ, and plus having a lens that goes as far as 70 would be nice. Plus eventually I'm going to upgrade to a FF.
Just cos a lens has a red ring does not mean its iq is better. Of the efs lenses 3 maybe 4 have image quality that could be justified as L grade. The 17-55 is certainly one of them (the 10-22 , 60/2.8 and probably the 15-85 are the others.
The efs lenses may not have the build of an L but as for iq they do.
Yea, it's all about the IQ of my Sigma lens. The IQ just seems terrible to me. I don't know if I got a bad batch, or what, but all of the images are just muddy and dull and unsharp. I recently switched to my Canon from a Sony Alpha and my main lens was a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. The images were fantastic compared to my current set up.
Not all L glass IQ is better. The 17-55 IQ is every bit as good as the 24-70. Give the 24-70 a try but I wouldn't buy FF glass on the hope of going that route in the future. Buy what you need now, use it and sell it if/when you go FF. Canon glass holds it's value very well so if you take care of your gear there is little to loose when you sell/upgrade in the future. The 17-55 is a great choice.
I keep the 24-70 on my 5D, while the EFS 17-55 2.8 stays on the 7D. I am very happy with both setups. The 24mm on the 7D isn't wide enough inside for my needs. I don't know why Canon doesn't offer the 17-55 as a kit lens with the 7D the way they do the 5DII and 24-105.
Not for me. It is wide enough for FF. But the question is not if that good but expensive lens is wide enough for a 60D. the question should be: Body is the right one for this lens?
Imo not. I would not buy an extreme wideangel lens to perform with a crop body. I would buy a body good enough for a usual lens.
Sorry what is wrong with the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8? Do you mean the OS lens as that's a darn good lens, or did you mean 18-50?
FWIW I used a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 extensively on my 20D and wasn't often disappointed it wasn't wider. You change the type of shoot you do a little or try panos if you need wider.
A friend in the local camera club shoots with the Sigma, and it is unbelievably sharp. Before you go throwing money away, have Sigma calibrate it. When it's right, this lens is truly "L" grade.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Sorry what is wrong with the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8? Do you mean the OS lens as that's a darn good lens, or did you mean 18-50?
FWIW I used a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 extensively on my 20D and wasn't often disappointed it wasn't wider. You change the type of shoot you do a little or try panos if you need wider.
Yea, I have the OS version. It just always seems to be "dull" and unsharp. To the above poster, that's actually not a bad idea.
But then again, I just want a "L" lens.
Plus I plan on upgrading to a FF probably in a year or two.
(24-70) * 1.6 = (38-112), i.e., (40-110), and that's weird, unusual and basically messed up
(17-55) * 1.6 = (27-88). i.e., (28-90), and that's customary, reasonable and basically nice
There are reasons that lens designers settled for decades on zooms like 28-80, 24-70, etc. Some of it has to do with physics, but mostly it has to do with what people need somewhat balanced against cost/physics.
The EF-s 17-55/2.8 is a superb lens. You might also give a quick try to the Tamron 17-50/2.8, which is also a very nice lens, though not quite up to the EF-s, especially at MFD.
