24-70mm f/2.8L or 17-55mm f/2.8 IS ?

[xkellie]

hi guys,

i'm looking at upgrading to a 7D (from sony), but am tossing up on which zoom lens to get. i've read reviews on both, but still can't decide. i do mostly portraiture and weddings.

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

a local photog recently said to always invest in L series, but the IS on the other lens sounds tempting. has anyone used one, or preferably both? there's not too much difference in the price, and would rather pay the extra for the better lens, if necessary.

currently i have a sony mount tamron 17-50 and i sometimes do shoot at 17mm, but mostly for joke "big head"/distorted shots, so range isn't a big issue, i'd imagine either would be fine in that respect.

i'll also be getting a 50 1.4 as well (not L, too poor for that baby).

[mjp]

I have the 24-70, but on a 5D. It's a beatiful len. But on a 7D, the 17-55 would be about the same equivalent working range. I don't miss IS on my len for woking with these focal lens. I like the range of the 24-70 on the 5D, so on the 7D, I would do the 17-55. I don't find the 24mm distorted at all on the 5D, so 17mm on the 7D should be the same. Unless you never going full-frame you might as well stick to the ef-s lens. The IS is a bonus, but if where is a similar lens without IS, save some money.

[Lindsay]

The Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM is equivalent in full frame terms to a 27-88/2.8 lens it's suitable for everything from landscapes to portraits and the fact that it is f2.8 and has 3 stops of image stabilization makes it a very good lens for hand-held low light work such as shooting interiors.

Its expensive and may indicate a strong commitment on the part of Canon to support the EF-S mount for its prosumer DSLRs. Though it's not designated as an "L" series lens (it seems to be policy on Canon's part to restrict the "L" designation to full frame lenses), it appears to be very close in performance to such lenses, using two ultra-low dispersion and two aspheric elements to achieve maximum image quality.

I would give it a go, there are numerous reviews out there if you wish to research further.

[Wobbles]

Hi xkellie,
agree with all the things above, if sticking with a crop body, the 17-55 is the way to go. I love mine, stays on one 50D 99% of the time. It doesn't quite have the build quality of an L but it's still very good, one positive advantage of that is it's about 300g lighter, significant when shooting for long periods. Undoubtedly the optics however are certainly L class.

Cheers
John

[Bercy]

I think for weddings I would prefer just a bit more mild telephoto, so you can stand back a bit, and still get a head and shoulders shot. At the wider end, I have seen stunning "environmental" shots, rather than the cheesy kiss the bride stuff and line up the relatives (just put your shoulder a bit forward, and now smile...duh!) I am not sure what your modus operandi is - more the reportage style? I guess to zoom in on a reflective expression or moment in the distance you would need a bit of reach, but still have the equivalent of FF 50mm for capturing a larger "scene". Id be heading for the 24-70.

[dulvariprestige]

If you're only upgrading to a 7d now, then there's a good chance that you won't be stepping up to full frame any time soon, though I could be wrong, I'd go for the 17-55, the only reason I still have my 24-105 is that I also have a 5d, but if I only had the 7d, I think the 17-55 would be part of my kit.

I've also heard, like Lindsay, that the only reason that the 17-55, and also the 10-22 aren't L, is because they're EF-S lenses, they do have a L price tag though.

[ZedEx]

this is why wedding photogs generally carry two bodies. That's what i'm doing for my first wedding in November - two Canon 5D's with a 24-70 and 70-200 both f2.8 respectively. Then a 50mm f1.4 for the reception :D

But yes, go the 17-55 for your crop bodied camera. I have heard very very good things abou the glass, and all things said and done it is just an L series lens without the red ring or the build-like-a-tank build quality - which is fine, really

[xkellie]

this is why wedding photogs generally carry two bodies. That's what i'm doing for my first wedding in November - two Canon 5D's with a 24-70 and 70-200 both f2.8 respectively. Then a 50mm f1.4 for the reception :D

the 70-200 2.8 is the next on the wishlist, but want to get a good 'close' zoom and 50mm first, because they're the two i use most with my sony setup. eventually i'd like to get a 5d mark II and use the 7d as the 2nd camera, but that won't be for quite a while.

thanks so much for your help, looks like i'm going for the 17-55mm! i'd spent hours reading reviews, and most of them said it's fairly equal to L quality, so I'm glad to see that's also the consensus here. it just somehow feels more reliable coming from AP folk. :)

[mitgonk]

i believe the 17-55 has 2 canon UD elements as well as 2 aspherical elements and has IS

the 24-70 has 2 aspherical elements and 1 UD element...please correct me if i'm wrong

so the 17-55 is definately an L lens in a EF-S body! though a new 24-70 is tipped to be unveiled next year, supposedly WITH IS

[sonofcoco]

Thought I'd chime in here as I'm currently thinking of getting the 24-70mm too, with the 17-55mm also being a consideration. I currently have the 10-22mm, 50mm 1.8, 70-200mm f4L, 100mm f2.8 Macro and the 17-85mm kit lens. Am looking at the next lens as basically a replacement for the kit lens. Having the 10-22mm, I was thinking of the 24-70mm as a nice replacement as it fits nicely in between that and the 70-200mm. It's not important to have all focal lengths covered obviously, but I thought the 24-70mm might be a better option given I have the 10-22mm already.