A&P Lens choice 1.6 FOVCF 17-55 2.8 IS vs 24-70 2.8

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Dragon129, Dec 17, 2009.

  1. Dragon129

    Dragon129 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    I currently have the 17-55 2.8 IS and love it :bowdown:. I'm debating on whether I should pick up a 24-70 2.8 to either replace it or go along side it. Any crop body photogs have the 24-70 2.8 and do you like it better than the 17-55 2.8 IS? I feel like I'm missing out on quality, contrast, color with the L quality lens and not to concerned with to much with IS although it helps sometimes.

    Focal length range isn't a huge deal as I have the 10-22mm and the 70-200 F4 IS. Anyone done direct comparisons on a 1.6 FOVCF body?
     
  2. tetsuo

    tetsuo And shepherds we shall be...

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    9,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    i was going to recommend staying with the 17-55, but since you already have the 17-22mm range covered with another lens, it wouldn't be a bad idea to upgrade to the 24-70. i would just take into consideration how often you need to go from the 50mm range to wider than 24mm fast, because with the 24-70, shooting around 50mm and then a shot at 20mm will involve a lens change or a 2nd body.
     
  3. GlobeGuy

    GlobeGuy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,974
    Likes Received:
    0
    IIRC, there were number of quality non-L lenses in Canon line-up. Is 17-55 2.8 IS one of them? If so, I don't see the need to upgrade. It's quite possible that it never got the L designation just because it was for a crop body. Don't buy into marketing, 17-55mm is pretty sweet on crop bodies.
     
  4. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    :uh:
     
  5. Dragon129

    Dragon129 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    So is this to imply that the 17.55 2.8 matches the quality of the L lens exactly? Looking for answers not a smiley.
     
  6. Dragon129

    Dragon129 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Washington D.C.

    Yeah I'm probably going to keep it but think I want to rent the 24-70 2.8 just to see how it compares :bowdown:.
     
  7. FindersKeepers

    FindersKeepers New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,974
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tampa, Florida
    I'm renting the 24-70 right now and OMG I'm loving it

    I rented it for a month from LensLoaners, im sad i have to return it in 2 weeks :wtc:


    But I do believe I'll be buying one, but beware it is HEAVY!!!!!!!
     
  8. Cicada

    Cicada OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    143,761
    Likes Received:
    874
    Location:
    SoCal
    i had the same dilemma

    i went with the 24-70.

    i DID shoot with the 17-55 though (friend rented one) and it's SHARP AS FFFFUUUUUU


    the 24-70 is sharp too, but i really feel that the 17-55 is sharper all around. Even after i sent my 24-70 in for calibration/service, the images i got with the 17-55 i borrowed are still looking sharper than the ones coming out of the 24-70 :(

    i went with the 24-70 because i plan on picking up a used 1d4 or 5d2 in the future.

    that, and i ended up getting the tokina 10-24 for my UWA/WA needs. so i have no overlap, but im covered from 10-200mm :bowdown:
     
  9. wizeguy4

    wizeguy4 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Allentown, PA
    I did try both and ended up with the 17-55 and like everyone else that owns one, I love it.

    To me the 24-70 has 2 advantages - it can be used on a full frame and it has internal zooming that makes the lens have an overall better build feel. But I dont believe it has better IQ
     
  10. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's to imply that there are lenses out there that aren't L lenses that are still L quality.
     
  11. Cicada

    Cicada OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    143,761
    Likes Received:
    874
    Location:
    SoCal
    it's only not an L because it's an EF-S.

    it's sharper, focuses faster, and has IS....and it's lighter than the 24-70.
     
  12. NYM3

    NYM3 Is this teal life or is it....fanta-sea?

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    61,025
    Likes Received:
    664
    Location:
    Gunshine state
    and the weather sealing is also different I believe.

    But I agree other than the EF-S and weathersealing...its just as good a lens.

    I have the 17-55 and rented the 24-70. Both were fantastic :bigthumb:
     

Share This Page