p.1 #1 · With EF-S 17-55/2.8 does 24/2.8 make sense
Getting a EFS 17-55/2.8 soon...also looking at some primes (35/2, 24/2.8 and 50/1.4) For those of you that own the EFS 17-55/2.8, is it sharp enough across the board to render the 24/2.8 with equal largest aperture useless? Opinions welcome, thanks!
p.1 #2 · With EF-S 17-55/2.8 does 24/2.8 make sense
If you own a 17-55, I doubt you would use a 28 2.8. I sold mine after I picked up the 17-55. The 17-55 is prime sharp. It has been a couple of years since I sold my 28, but I think the 17-55 is sharper.
p.1 #5 · With EF-S 17-55/2.8 does 24/2.8 make sense
I've never used the 24, so I can't give a comparison, but I can say that my EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS is one of the best lenses I've owned or used.
Someone told me that he sold his 35L after getting a 17-55, and while I won't go that far, I must admit that I've used my 35L a lot less than I thought I would; the 17-55 is that good.
Nov 15, 2009 at 04:51 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · With EF-S 17-55/2.8 does 24/2.8 make sense
Obviously the 24mm f/2.8 doesn't get you anything in focal length or aperture and it doesn't have IS or the ability to zoom. It probably doesn't offer much if anything in IQ either. What it does offer is a smaller size and a very nice focal length on a crop body to use as a walk around lens. So if a smaller lighter package is that matters to you, then it wouldn't be worthless.
p.1 #11 · With EF-S 17-55/2.8 does 24/2.8 make sense
I have it and I sold the 35/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4 as they were made redundant. Yes, it's that good. 60/2.8 and especially 85/1.8 are another matter. That said, I'd pair it with the 100/2.8 IS.
p.1 #12 · With EF-S 17-55/2.8 does 24/2.8 make sense
when u say 60/2.8 and 85/1.8 are another matter...u mean its worth taking those on to my 17-55? Not sure where the 100/2.8 IS comes into play, its a tad long for a prime on a crop for me. Im actually looking to pick up a 55-250 IS soon for the mid to long range.
p.1 #13 · With EF-S 17-55/2.8 does 24/2.8 make sense
You have an excellent L zoom quality from the 17-55IS, why spoil it with an average-to-good performer like the 55-250? Save your money and get one of those 70-200L instead. Who knows, maybe during that time you might learn that you don't actually need to cover ALL focal length and get yourself another lens instead.
p.1 #14 · With EF-S 17-55/2.8 does 24/2.8 make sense
i cant afford the 70-200 IS and i dont think I shoot long that much...so i figured based on the sharp samples I saw from the 55-250 IS it would be good enough for the few times I use it. I see tons of deals on the F4L non IS...but i think camera shake will be a prob for me with that thing if im not glued to a tripod all the time.
p.1 #15 · With EF-S 17-55/2.8 does 24/2.8 make sense
I had the 24 2.8, and it was a sharp lens. However, I'm going to guess (never compared) that you WON'T miss it, if you have the 17-55. I got rid of mine when I got the 24-70.
p.1 #16 · With EF-S 17-55/2.8 does 24/2.8 make sense
I've actually got both lenses. I bought my 24mm 2.8 while I was between wide zooms. I find I still use it for most of my landscapes because I love the sharpness and especially its size. For hiking or traveling, the small 24mm can't be beat. I also really like it because of the small filter sizes it takes. It sure saves alot of money in B&W filters and Cokin.
p.1 #17 · With EF-S 17-55/2.8 does 24/2.8 make sense
UCSB wrote:
If you own a 17-55, I doubt you would use a 28 2.8. I sold mine after I picked up the 17-55. The 17-55 is prime sharp. It has been a couple of years since I sold my 28, but I think the 17-55 is sharper.
Lets not kid yourself. It's a good lens,but it's not anywhere near being prime sharp.
Bought one for my cousin last year and IS broke after 3 months. Then after it was taken to a Canon for repair it broke again 2 months after warranty expired. Read up on that and seems like EVERYONE has issues with the IS system. Why buy a lemon? Get a 24-70 and don't ever have to worry about it or the dust inside the lens
p.1 #18 · With EF-S 17-55/2.8 does 24/2.8 make sense
Talofa wrote:
I've actually got both lenses. I bought my 24mm 2.8 while I was between wide zooms. I find I still use it for most of my landscapes because I love the sharpness and especially its size. For hiking or traveling, the small 24mm can't be beat. I also really like it because of the small filter sizes it takes. It sure saves alot of money in B&W filters and Cokin.
so basically all u need it for now is size? hows the sharpness compare?
p.1 #19 · With EF-S 17-55/2.8 does 24/2.8 make sense
reason wrote:
Lets not kid yourself. It's a good lens,but it's not anywhere near being prime sharp.
Don't kid yourself that all zooms are built the same, or all primes are built the same, such that can stand sweeping generalizations like that. fwiw, 17-55 is built with ULD elements, which optically qualifies a Canon lens for a red ring.
When I shot with a 30D, I had a 17-55/2.8 IS. I also bought a 24/2.8 at the same time. I have experience with both lenses. The 17-55 is an excellent lens, sharp, good color & contrast. The 24/2.8 won't give you anything the 17-55 can do except the 24/2.8 is among one of Canon's smallest lenses. It's discreet, light and small, which is what I bought it for, and still keep it around. If you don't value these aspect, then it's not worth getting. For me, it was closest thing to an EF-mount AF pancake lens.
Another aspect.....when I shoot with a wide angle prime (as opposed to a zoom that covers the same focal length), unconsciously, I tend to end up with more interesting perspective shots. YMMV.
