p.2 #2 · 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or 24-70mm f/4L on a 7D?
Burak Baysal wrote:
From what I've seen at the-digital-picture and others, 24-70 still has an edge on sharpness, even though 17-55 optics are L quality. However, gotta have IS for video, methinks.
Aparently the 17-55 isnt as sharp as it can be focusing so close for a test chart, slrgear rates it higher and in real world use it seems people rate it higher than the 24-70 (tho I'm sure the L on a ff body like for like will give better results).
After a lot of consideration and a good test of a 24-70 on my 350D I will be getting a 17-55 IS for my 7D I think.
p.2 #4 · 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or 24-70mm f/4L on a 7D?
I was referring to the field of view and depth of field calculated by a factor of 1.6 for the crop factor and the 1 1/3 stops for DOF.
And yes, f2.8 is f2.8 no matter the body, but FF is at least one stop better regarding noise so there isn't any big penalty going from f2.8 on crop to f4 on FF, other than possibly AF.
Anyway, for crop 1.6X bodies, get the 17-55 f2.8 IS and for FF get the 24-70 or 24-105 depending on your needs. For me, going from the 17-55 on crop to the 24-105 on FF seemed like the best transition.
p.2 #5 · 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or 24-70mm f/4L on a 7D?
J_Andrew wrote:
yep, got that now. a 24-70/2.8 IS L would solve my dilemma
Would it really?
The two major arguments against the 24-70 are it's lack of IS, AND one that seems to be MORE apparent, is the "range" on an APS-C sensor.
Adding IS doesn't change the range.
While I'd go for the 24-70 (even non-IS, I'm one of the like 4 people on Earth who thinks the lens is absolutely nothing short of amazing), I think that for
size, weight, cost, and effectiveness (and by this I don't mean it's a better lens, I just mean that the range may suit some folks much more) on APS-C, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS would beat out a 24-70 f/2.8 IS (if one existed).
Again, IQ not in this discussion (I'm also one of the folks who thinks that the 24-70 is a better lens, and I'm not buying the EF-S is an L with an EF-S branding. It's an awesome lens, period. If it was an L it'd say L).
I'm not saying only L's have great IQ. My 50 1.8 is a great lens, and it's the furthest thing you can get from an L.
For my uses the 17-55 and 24-70 would be event/sports/wedding lenses. IS isn't as important to me. However if you were someone who was shooting in dark environments, where you needed wide angle, and IS, the 17-55 is a better choice.
p.2 #6 · 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or 24-70mm f/4L on a 7D?
Burak Baysal wrote:
I have pretty much convinced myself 17-55mm is optimal on the 7D.
I take lots of low light indoor photos and video of small (two legged) critters.
From what I've seen at the-digital-picture and others, 24-70 still has an edge on sharpness, even though 17-55 optics are L quality. However, gotta have IS for video, methinks.
I am also wondering how much of an improvement it'll be over an 28-135mm.
Canon should have kitted 7D with the 17-55, IMHO. But then again I probably couldn't have sneaked it past the better half.
And lastly, why is there a rebate on the 17-55?
Not that I am complaining, but this lens is so well regarded and seems to hold its resale value.
p.2 #8 · 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or 24-70mm f/4L on a 7D?
RobertLynn..
My dilemma is that I want the "equivalent" of the 15-55/2.8 on a full frame....it wouldn't have quite the reach (the 17-55 having a long end equiv of 88) but it would be close....
If there was a 24-70/2.8 IS I'd probably make the jump to FF, as I'm really tempted to do so now anyway....
p.2 #9 · 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or 24-70mm f/4L on a 7D?
Depends on what your other lens are.
If you have a UWA and a zoom such as 100-400 or 70-200, then either the 24-70 or 24-105mm lens make better sense. If the 17-55mm is going to be your widest lens then it's a good one to pick though it's a pricey one.
Been wondering about the fate of the 24-70mm f2.8. It's screaming for an update. The addition of IS is logical and would be perfect for me to partner with the 10-22mm & 70-200 F4.
p.2 #10 · 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or 24-70mm f/4L on a 7D?
Thanks a lot to all that responded.
I just got back from my daughters play and heard an earful about the shaky video I took with a borrowed 70-200 f/4. On a tripod no less. A skinny tripod, but still.
Got to have that IS.
I was worried I am missing out on the sharpness and IQ of an L lense, but seems like there are a lot of happy 17-55 users.
I think they stack up well, thr 17-55 is sharpest in the middle, and better at the long end than the short wide open, which is probably more how I will use it.
I trialed a 24-70 for a couple of days though and loved it , checkout my website, www.zarphag.com
Date Taken: 2009-05-24 10:57:45
Camera: Canon EOS 30D
Exposure Time: 1.3s (13/10)
Aperture: f/22.0
ISO: 100
Focal Length: 17mm (27.2mm in 35mm)
Date Modified: 2009-11-15 18:17:06
Photo Dimensions: 3504 x 2336
File Size: 6.54 MB
Flash: flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Exposure Program: aperture priority
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Exposure Mode: auto
White Balance: auto
Color Space: unknown
Date Taken: 2009-01-31 07:36:36
Camera: Canon EOS 30D
Exposure Time: 0.04s (1/25)
Aperture: f/10.0
ISO: 100
Focal Length: 17mm (27.2mm in 35mm)
Date Modified: 2009-11-10 21:09:53
Photo Dimensions: 3504 x 2336
File Size: 2.27 MB
Flash: flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Exposure Program: aperture priority
Exposure Bias: -1 EV
Exposure Mode: auto
White Balance: auto
Color Space: sRGB
p.2 #13 · 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or 24-70mm f/4L on a 7D?
The 17-55mm with its IS functions well in low light. Just press the shutter button in two steps, the first half way to give the IS mechanism a second or two to kick in, and then the rest of the way to release the shutter.
With this careful technique, I've taken sharp shots at 1/4 second handheld.
I began as an available light shooter, and that extra slow shutter speed captured more ambient light, at ISO 100, for remarkable results -- a peculiar softness to the light, as if the subject had been bathed in light, because the sensor has time to gather the light there in the shadows.
For anybody who tries this slow shutter speed, I'd recommend trying higher ISO settings if aiming to achieve more DOF.
The 17-55mm lens with IS serves as a very versatile piece of gear. I went around America on a 2-month road trip, and shot most of my images, even the Grand Canyon, with this lens.
Since then I have also learned the virtues of the 70-200mm IS lens for landscape images.
p.2 #14 · 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or 24-70mm f/4L on a 7D?
J_Andrew wrote:
RobertLynn..
My dilemma is that I want the "equivalent" of the 15-55/2.8 on a full frame....it wouldn't have quite the reach (the 17-55 having a long end equiv of 88) but it would be close....
If there was a 24-70/2.8 IS I'd probably make the jump to FF, as I'm really tempted to do so now anyway....
The 24-105 is both wider and longer and has more control over depth of field on a full frame camera than the 17-55 on a crop camera. You do give up one real stop, but FF is at least one stop better in regard to noise. I always thought the 55 end was a bit short on crop with its 88nmn equiv, so I know that 70 would be even worse in this regard on FF.
My point is, that if you want an equivalent of 15-55 f2.8 going from 1.6 crop to full frame, the 24-105 converted would be approximately 15-66 f2.5 (field of view and depth of field) so it should meet your needs.
p.2 #15 · 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or 24-70mm f/4L on a 7D?
I had the 24-70 and the 17-55 at the same time for a couple of months and never used the 24-70. in my opinion you cannot beat the 17-55 for a crop camera. It pretty much takes place of the 24-70 (losing 56-70) and the 17-40 plus gives you 2.8 and IS throughout the range, for a lot less of a price.
p.2 #16 · 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or 24-70mm f/4L on a 7D?
Asmodeous wrote:
Depends on what your other lens are.
If you have a UWA and a zoom such as 100-400 or 70-200, then either the 24-70 or 24-105mm lens make better sense. If the 17-55mm is going to be your widest lens then it's a good one to pick though it's a pricey one.
Been wondering about the fate of the 24-70mm f2.8. It's screaming for an update. The addition of IS is logical and would be perfect for me to partner with the 10-22mm & 70-200 F4.
I don't doubt at some point that Canon will add IS to the lens. However, I think that the lens is hardly screaming for an update.
p.2 #17 · 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or 24-70mm f/4L on a 7D?
J_Andrew wrote:
RobertLynn..
My dilemma is that I want the "equivalent" of the 15-55/2.8 on a full frame....it wouldn't have quite the reach (the 17-55 having a long end equiv of 88) but it would be close....
If there was a 24-70/2.8 IS I'd probably make the jump to FF, as I'm really tempted to do so now anyway....
You want 15-55 f/2.8 on a crop? I don't think that's realistically doable.
My crop camera only gets used when I'm shooting sporting events, and need the faster clackity clack clack of it, over the clack clack clack of the 5D. I do use the 5D though at the same events.
If I go through my images, and you don't count that I take like 2000 or so pictures at a fight, and only 10% of that at a portrait session, my FF camera gets more use than the crop. By that I mean, I do more sessions with the FF than I do with crop.
It's different for everybody though, the same lens that makes me gaga, may make you goofy, and the same body that makes you gaga may make me goofy.
I'm sure you've done a ton of research on the switch. Either camera system (crop of ff) will help you to create wonderful images.
p.2 #18 · 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or 24-70mm f/4L on a 7D?
RobertLynn wrote:
You want 15-55 f/2.8 on a crop? I don't think that's realistically doable.
Sorry, wasn't very clear. I really really like the 17-55/2.8 IS on the crop (which I have.). I'd love to have something equivalent to it on a FF, so if they added IS to the 24-70, that would be close.
Whoever (sorry, just glanced at the name and now can't go look) posted about the 24-105 and noise being better on the FF, thanks - hadn't factored the noise improvement into the equation....that does sort of give back that 1 stop from 2.8 to 4.
Date Modified: 2009-11-10 19:12:46
Photo Dimensions: 2336 x 3504
File Size: 1.23 MB
Flash: flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Exposure Program: manual
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Exposure Mode: manual
White Balance: auto
Color Space: sRGB
