I need help trying to decide between:
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
or
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L
I don't plan on upgrading to a full frame anytime soon, so the compatibility of the 17-55 isn't a concern. From what I have been reading, the 17-55 IS is great even though it isn't an L. Has anyone shot with both of these?
I use a 40D and the other lens I have are:
Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.4
Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon Telephoto EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro
I like to take a lot of landscape shots usually, but recently I have been helping some people out with a lot of candid portraits, and I feel I need a good short range zoom lens, because I don't love the quality of the 28-135mm IS. I mean it is decent, but not great in my opinion. The 50 1.4 is great, but just somewhat limiting at times.
I can really only but one big ticket lens this year and I know that I eventually want to get the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. My question is after looking at what I own should I even be debating between the 17-55mm/24-70mm, or should my next lens be the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS?
I believe this is really a focal length question. And for candid portraits, I find that I prefer my 24-105 over my 17-55, simple because 55mm is a bit short for portraits IMO, and I find that 24 is plenty wide enough. Now for an all around lens, I do prefer the 17-55 range simply because 24mm can be limiting for group shots or walk around city shooting. What has your experience been with your 28-135? Has 28 been wide enough? Are you out past 55 much? This should really answer your question for you. From an IQ standpoint I am sure you would be happy with either lens.
I bought the 24-70L as a Christmas gift for myself last year to use with my 350D and used it for about a week and sent it back. I just didn't feel that it gave me enough reach on the short end.
I sent it back and got the 17-55 2.8 IS. I love this lens and haven't looked back. Yes, it's true that the 17-55 doesn't have the red ring, which means alot to some people but I think it's perfect for what I needed.
Also, since you already have the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS I think the 17-55 is a no brainer.
Just my .02
Ben
This year for Christmas I bought myself a 40D and it combined with the 17-55 make an awesome combo.
As you have the 10-22 to cover the wide end of things I would be tempted to get the 24-70 as you would have more reach at the long end for candids. Or just bite the bullet and get the 70-200. Nothing against the 17-55 it is meant to be a very good lens.
The question is whether you will always have the 10-22 and the 2nd lens with you. The 17-55 gives you enough coverage on the wide end to leave the 10-22 home except for when you know you need 'really wide'. It is a damn sharp lens and the IS is great. It's just not built like a tank.
If you are thinking 24-70 for the reach, you might also want to think 24-105L. You lose an f stop but gain IS and reach.
The 10-22, 24-105 and 70-200 F4 IS is stellar combo for a 40D. The 10-22 is so small and light that it go with you most of the time without being a problem. The 24-105 is a killer lens on a crop camera and the IS is invaluable. Lots of range and if you really need fast than you probably need faster than a F2.8 anyway. The 17-55 is kind of weird lens to me. Not quite long enough and not quite short enough. Probably a good city lens when looking for a single lens solution. If you are planning on keeping the 10-22 then you are paying for a lot of overlap on the wide end and giving up reach on the long end to get the F2.8.
At some point in the future, if you add a 70-200 you will have a greta kit that won't kill you weightwise.
I do usually carry my 10-22 because it is so light, and a great lens, but we all know changing the lens isn't always an option for some candid shots. I have used the 10-22mm at the 22 range for group shots and had good results. I guess my decision would be easier possibly if they came out with a 24-70 f/2.8L IS......although I am sure that would tack on about $300 to the price tag.
For those of you doing a lot of candid shots, both indoors and out, do you feel it is better to have more room on the shorter or longer end? Basically what do you think I will miss most 17-24mm or 55-70? I am assuming image quality is pretty much the same on both of these right?
Well, I replaced my kit lens with the Tamron 28-75 and I thought I would really miss having something wider. After owning the lens for a year I have only wished for something wider a time or two. I do find myself using the 75mm end all the time though. I really think it depends on what you are using the lens for. I use my Tamron mainly for photos of people. I think the range is great for that. I have found that shooting people tighter is the way I prefer it. The people shots I took at wider angles were always my least favorite shots.
Another thing I believe in is buying a lens for a purpose. Are you buying this lens as a general walk-around lens, or primarily for portraits? If you are going to use it alot for general use, maybe the wider angle of the 17-55 is important, but if it will be used as you said, mostly for portraits I think I would get the 24-70. You could also consider the 24-105, as has been mentioned. I like bigger aperature lenses though, as I find it easier to blur the backgound which I like to do when I can. I don't know that the 2.8 is an advantage over the 4 with IS for portraits, since generally the subjects aren't moving much so motion blur should not be an issue.
Oh, and I really like my Tamron 28-75. You could actually buy a Tamron 28-75 and a Tamron 17-50 for less than either of the Canon lenses mentioned. Just a thought.
Candid shots generally imply a longer focal length, which is why I'd echo the sentiment of those that suggested the 24-105. It really depends on your style. I have both the 17-55 and the 24-70 and for my uses, the 17-55 is a great general purpose lens, I rarely have a need to go wider. When I know I'm going to be doing a lot of candids or portraits, the 24-70 comes out.
Just a purely subjective sidenote. Holding both in your hands, the 24-70 feels substantial, like you definately got what you paid for. The 17-55 feels like the 10-22.
I have the 17-55 for walking around and find it amazing! Wide open at 2.8 it is extremely sharp and I do not find the 55mm limiting. In fact I do not own anything in the 55-100 range and I never feel I am missing out...
I struggled with this decision as well. I went with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Its an awesome lens and complements my 10-22 and 70-200 f/4 perfectly. Its a great landscape and walk-around lens and I do like it for portraits as well. 24mm would not have been wide enough for me.
if i were you, i would take a look a the photos that you would consider "candid" that you've taken and study what focal length they mostly fall into. that should tell you whether the 17-55 is better for you or the 24-70. i have both lenses and the 17-55 is my favorite on a 1.6 crop and the 24-70 on a 1.3 or ff - as a general purpose lens.
the one thing that can tip the scale for you is if you do a significant amount of stuff indoors in low light and no flash, the 17-55 is preferable because of the IS. both lenses are already f/2.8 but the IS will beat the 24-70 in many cases when there is not much movement going on.
i also owned the 24-105 at one point but never really liked that lens. i found that the iq on that is subpar to both the 24-70 and 17-55. it is a great lens no doubt but it was just not for me.
i have a b&h promo code right now for both lenses and it might also help you make your decision when you see the lower prices. email me if you're interested and i'll reply with the promo code. i'm not sure how long the codes will last but i have a feeling not too long anymore.
The 24-70 is a great little zoom and a great walkabout lens. I always found mine incredibly sharp through the range and the long end was long enough for portraits and the wide end enough for groups.
For landscapes and portraits I think that the 24-105f4 is a good choice. The only time I felt limited with this lens was shooting an event in really bad light using fill flash. After about 10 minutes with my 24-105f4 I switched over to my 50f1.4 and shot a lot at f2 so that I could bring down my ISO and still have a pretty decent shutter speed. I think that depending on situations even 2.8 isn't enough and primes are the way to go. That being said my 24-105 is my most used lens although my 70-200f2.8L IS really shines for portraits...
My 17-55 IS is still my favorite lens. My 24-105 L sat in my camera bag, unused, for nearly 9 months after I purchased the 17-55 IS (until I bought the 5D and now it is my 5D walkaround lens). I don't care about the L lens weighing more or having a red stripe, the 17-55 produces amazing images. Isn't that what our goal is?
I have used the 17-55 IS on my 40D (effectively 27-88mm when taking into account the crop factor), for many portraits of family and friends, with very pleasing results. Also, the 17-55 is a perfect walkaround lens, on a 1.6 CF body.
However, the 17-55 IS will come up short (too often) if you are interested in doing a lot of candids. In the end, you will probably want more reach if you plan on doing lots of candids. If your primary goal is portraits and a great walkaround lens, the 17-55 IS is really hard to beat (I found it a superior option to the 24-105 L). If you think that you will be doing lots of candids, you will end up longing for more reach when using the 17-55 IS. As others have already said, you will need to decide what you will use this lens for "the most."
I agree completely with David, who gives a **** about a silly little red ring. I actually think the build of the 17-55 is fine. The rings are smooth and it is a brilliant lens to use. Alright so I find whenever I can I love to handle the 70-200 instead but I tell you what when I go for walks with my dog the 17-55 is my lens. You can't beat 17mm on crop when you want to capture simply everything you can see in focus.
The 17-55 is what people should call a black ring, those lenses that Canon underestimate in brilliance and therefore keep the body of the lense mostly one colour.
I've tried the 24-70 of a friends, I prefer the 17-55, you gain a lot in width but don't lose much in length.
On a crop body I'd go with the 17-55 and make sure you put a UV filter on the front to prevent the famous dust ingress problem. The 24-70 is just too big and heavy for a walkaround IMO and I always yearned for a little more at the wide end.
On a crop body, 24mm is not quite wide enough for me and 70mm is not really long enough when I want some reach, making the 24-70 range somewhat frustrating. The 24-105 would be better because it offers more reach though I would still be bumping up against 24mm too often.
I kept the 24-70, however, and intend to use it more when I get a 5D (or 7D if it comes true)
I have both but rarely carry both. I make the decidion which to take on the basis of what I am going to shoot. If I'm expecting to shoot a wide mix with a focus on landscapes, architecture, museums, cultural artifacts, etc it'll definitley be the 17-55. If I know it is going to be mainly people I go for the 24-70 almost every time. If I want to take lots of the first type but be prepared for good people opportunities I will also take along either the 85 f1.8 or 50 f1.4 (if I want to go light) or the 70-200 IS.
The 17-55 is very sharp (it has better edge sharpness wide open than the 24-70, even on a crop. It evens out as you stop down) and the IS helps with handheld landscapes in the gathering gloom and in places like museums/churches where flash and tripods may not be deisrable or allowed. It can also help with dragging the shutter for more ambient light options with flash portraits (assuming your model keeps still enough).
However for candids and most of the time with kids you probably want to keep the shutter speed up a little anyway (I default to 1/125) so IS would be less crucial here than on a 70-200 (where it makes a lot of difference).
The three drawbacks that I find make the 17-55 less than ideal when predominantly shooting people are the focal length (at closer focusing distances it is only around 50mm - fine for half body but not so good for tight headshots in portrait orientation) and somewhat gnarly bokeh which makes it less attractive for isolation style portraits. From what I have seen the 24-105 bokeh suffers in a similar way. The 24-70, however, scores here as (on the crop factor) it will give you all the focal lengths you need for people assuming you are not too far away and I find the bokeh much nicer, or at least less distracting.
The third problem with the 17-55 is that it is much more likely to suffer from flare problems than most other lenses I have. Even with the hood. This means keeping light sources well away from it. The main problem with candids will be in backlit situations where from time to time you will suddenly get veiling flare that ruins the shot. It isn't every shot by a long margin but it has spoiled at least one 'magic moment' shot for me in the past. It is also subject to quite spectacular ghosting flare in some landscape situations - though its so obvious that you'll usually notice in the viewfinder. I've not really noticed this much with the 24-70.
The 17-55 should work fine for most environmental/editorial style portraits where you are stopping down somewhat to include the background detail as part of the image (saying something about the subject - either by its association or disassociation). It is also lighter than either teh 24-70 or 70-200 if that is a factor for you.
The 70-200 is a great lens for outdoor candids (and compression landscapes and many other things) and I really hesitate to advise whether going for this first or either of the mid-range zooms is best. All three are excellent zooms in their own way. I expect to keep both the 24-70 and 70-200 (unless an optically equal/superior IS version of the 24-70 comes out) when I go full frame (as you say not an issue for you). I'm less certain about the 17-55 - I expect to keep the 20D for my wife to use and for occasional birding trips or back-up/2nd camera for weddings and it would be the obvious general purpose lens. But I may use it to generate funds for something else.
Perhaps its better if I post a few Christmas day snaps that demonstrate some of the strengths and weaknesses of the 17-55.
On 20D, People shots with off camera flash.
A couple of shots taken a few moments apart demonstarting the veiling flare problem
And although you can do landscapes with any focal length many I find that this lens gives good options throughout the range (PS I am aware of the dust spots - I havn't proceesed these yet)
The price difference between all three lenses (17-55, 24-70 and 24-105) is all within a hundred dollars. All of these will do the job and given that you already have the 10-22, I would get rid of the 28-135 and buy the 24-70 or 24-105. I would say get your close work covered and then add your 70-200 last.
