Well, if you are into Primes, what about the 20 2.8, granted it is not a L lens but it is wider than the 24
Then there is the 14 2.8, it is a L but more expensive than the 24L
Just some alternatives
Or as JMGG said, the two L zooms. But, the version 1 of the 16-35 is probably getting a little harder to find. The version 2 is a couple hundred more than version 1.
I think wide zoom is the way to go here. Love to have the 24L sometime. 17-55IS seems to have dusts problems (from many reviews), so I guess 16-35 is the way to go here?
On a crop body, the 17-55/2.8 is killer. Was always on my 30D. For a FF body, I'd probably go with the 24L. I've been contemplating one myself, but use the 35L already.
I have the 17-55 on a 30D and love the lens but find I do have trouble when the lights get low. I am adding a 40D and considering a lens I can really count on in low light and was thinking of the 24L on the 40D.
If you add low light to the equasion would many of you still suggest the 17-55 over the 24L or another lens?
I hope I am just adding to the discussion and really not trying to steal the topic.
i use crop sensor cameras myself and am interested in this thread-for those suggesting the 16-35 and the 17-40, one huge difference between those and the 24L is 2 full stops faster than the 16-35 and 3 full stops faster than the 17-40-if you're a natural light shooter, that's a lot of light lost-just a thought, but i think it's certainly a consideration to make
That is why I myself am leaning toward a 24L. If I could I would go with a nice zoom but the low light issues are killing me. I take a lot of pictures so if I miss a good one once in a while I still have a lot of nice pictures - but I want them ALL...
So if you are thinking about the 17-55 or another zoom, think about any issues you have with light. Perhaps you've got that down but not me. As others have mentioned, I will use my feet for a zoom. That said, I really love my 17-55 (again, except for the occasion low light issue). I have been using the 17-55 on a 30D and a 70-200 2.8 with a 20D.
If you have a cropped camera, the 17-55 IS is THE zoom lens to have, period. The 16-35 doesn't do anything it doesn't do, and the 17-40 really doesn't need to be considered. I'd pick the Tamron 17-50 over the 17-40.
Now, the 24L is a nice lens, but then we're talking two different purposes, aren't we? For low light, the 17-55's IS helps alot (like 1/8 sec shutter speeds), but there's no substitute for 2 stops of apeture.
What I found is that the 24L is not quite wide enough on a crop body in small spaces, though it is a good 2 stop better than the 17-55 or 16-35. I don't think the IS does much in low light situations unless the subject is not moving much, plus you probably don't need it at the wide end. Since I already have a 50/1.8 & 85/1.8, I have decided to get a 16-35 MkI (my first real zoom besides the 28-80 that came w/ my first SLR!) to see how it works out. Not ideal for low light though.
For low light, I think primes are the way to go. Now only if I have a FF, I'll take the 24L and ditch the zoom.
