difference between 24-70L and 17-55

nikgone

Are there any major difference between 24-70L and 17-55 IS USM? their cost dont differ by ALOT...



BTW 40D IS PHUN! VERY PHUN. Although 28-135 doesn't really take good landscape pictures. Any suggestions for really ultra wide zoom lens? my composition still sucks and Im a poor student with no income heh.

I'm thinking of an ultra wide zoom because I THINK it can shoot the picture as if I am looking at the same place. My point is to take picture of this one place with alot of info and detail in that pic so that the person who sees my pic will get the same feeling as if he was at that very same place...Is that a good reason to buy ultra-wide zoom? sorry for my noob question

pyry

nikgone wrote:

Are there any major difference between 24-70L and 17-55 IS USM? their cost dont differ by ALOT...

The 17-55 is the 24-70L for EF-S.
Under the hood there's a trade between IS and weather sealing.

For a 40D I'd take the 17-55/2.8 IS every time - 24-70 is too long for it and the IS is nice to have. I shoot with one on a 20D, it's fantastic.

nikgone

DOH i still didn't learn the difference between EF and EF-S and what they mean. =(

24-70L is very hot...the lack of the red ring on 17-55 makes it "look" a little weak haha.

Wouldn't 17-55 a little...not too ultra-wide and not zoomed enough? but then again....there are no zoom lenses that can cover all the way from 10-200 without sacrificing quality...Guess im too idealistic

pyry

nikgone wrote:

DOH i still didn't learn the difference between EF and EF-S and what they mean. =(

24-70L is very hot...the lack of the red ring on 17-55 makes it "look" a little weak haha.

Wouldn't 17-55 a little...not too ultra-wide and not zoomed enough? but then again....there are no zoom lenses that can cover all the way from 10-200 without sacrificing quality...Guess im too idealistic

EF is 35mm or 'full format', EF-S is 1.6x crop sensor specific (ie. 1000D, 450D, 40D...). EF lenses will fit EF-S bodies, but not the other way around.

The lack of the red ring doesn't change the fact that the 17-55 is very sharp, corner to corner and wide open at that. The only things missing are the red marking, weather sealing (it'll still take light rain without issues) and the hood costs extra. Search it up on the forum - there's raving about it going on everywhere

As for the zoom range - it's quite a lot wider at 17mm than your other option is at 24mm. It's not ultrawide though, you'll want Tokina's 11-17, Sigma's 10-20 (got one, love it) or Canon's 10-22 for uwa.

Basically all the really good zooms have ranges of 4x or less.

Scott_Quier

nikgone wrote:

I'm thinking of an ultra wide zoom because I THINK it can shoot the picture as if I am looking at the same place. My point is to take picture of this one place with alot of info and detail in that pic so that the person who sees my pic will get the same feeling as if he was at that very same place...Is that a good reason to buy ultra-wide zoom? sorry for my noob question

If you are looking for detail in your scenics .... think about mounting a more normal focal length (30mm - 50mm) and flipping the camera to portrait orientation. Now, take a series of shots with some 30% overlap between them. Then, in software, stitch them together. What you end up with is the scenic of a WA or UWA with the detail you get from multiple shots.

To do this right, you need to shoot in manual mode. Set the shutter speed, the aperture, the ISO, and (maybe most importantly) the WB. Take the resulting images and stitch them together in software. You can do this with just a couple of exposures or go really crazy and stitch 10, 20, 30, 50 shots together and end up with a HUGE photo with a crazy amount of detail. It's fun! For more on this, do some searching for Panographic or pano photography.