I need help deciding.

cjphotojapan

I am looking to upgrade from my canon 28-135 lens. I can’t decide between the 24-70 f2.8L and the 17-50 is 2.8. If you have one or both I would love to hear what you have to say.

Thank you in advance.
John

ziggy53

cjphotojapan wrote:

I am looking to upgrade from my canon 28-135 lens. I can’t decide between the 24-70 f2.8L and the 17-50 is 2.8. If you have one or both I would love to hear what you have to say.

Thank you in advance.
John

What camera(s) are you wanting to use the lens on?

What applications or uses? (Events, portraiture, ...?)

What is it about the EF 28-135mm, f3.5-5.6 IS USM that makes you consider a change?

jmphotocraft

crop camera = 17-55. full frame = 24-70. It's as simple as that. 24 is not wide enough on a crop camera. i went from the 17-85 to the 24-70 to the 17-55 on a crop camera. 17-55 wins.

of course, now that I'm on a full frame camera, I'm back to the 24-70.

cjphotojapan

Sorry,
I have a 7D and an XTI. I would like a little wider for indoor portraits. I would also like the extra light the 2.8 offers. I do a lot of youth sports and indoor events. I think 17mm would be nice but I don't know if I would miss the extra 20mm on the other end. It would be nice to save $300 or so on the 17-55 but I know the 24-70 is an L series.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

ziggy53 wrote:

What camera(s) are you wanting to use the lens on?

What applications or uses? (Events, portraiture, ...?)

What is it about the EF 28-135mm, f3.5-5.6 IS USM that makes you consider a change?

jmphotocraft

the 15mm you give up from 55 to 70 is not significant. with 18mp, you can crop the difference easily. the difference from 17 to 24mm is very significant. you can't "un-crop" that. and indoors, usually you can't back up any further.

the 17-55 has L glass. just not L construction. the IS sweetens the deal.

cjphotojapan

Thank you,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"> <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/bowdown.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" > <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1&quot;></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></v:path><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype>Ziggy53 and <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/bowdown.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" > Jack. It helps to hear other people’s feelings about this.<o:p></o:p>
I am seeing a lot about dust in 17-55. Are ether of you having this problem?<o:p></o:p>

jmphotocraft

cjphotojapan wrote:

Thank you,<o:p></o:p>
<v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"> <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/bowdown.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" > <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1&quot;></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></v:path><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype>Ziggy53 and <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/bowdown.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" > Jack. It helps to hear other people’s feelings about this.<o:p></o:p>
I am seeing a lot about dust in 17-55. Are ether of you having this problem?<o:p></o:p>

I had that problem, but it never affected IQ. It was a little annoying though. I've read that if you always use a UV filter that it prevents the dust problem. Or if you like to go commando (no filter) like I do, you can remove the dust yourself:

http://www.pbase.com/rcicala/1755_is_surgery

However after a while I had dust past the 2nd element. In retrospect, I wish I had invested in a B+H UV filter, but oh well. I was still able to sell it for a good price, dust and all.

cjphotojapan

Thanks

Art Scott

There is another viable and really good lens option......The Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 ........it is variable aperture but do you really shoot at f2.8 a lot......I don't I need the DOF in event shooting and such.....so I normally am shooting at f4 or 5.6 and raising the iso a bit...........

Now Sigma just not to long ago took their superb 10-20 and made it a constant 3.5 so I trully look for the 17-70 to be a constant aperture lens in the very near future

ziggy53

I have the EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM and I can vouch for the "L" quality of the optics. I have had a protective filter on that lens since day one and I have not noticed dust. Yes, I did put a B+W filter on that lens.

I also have the very old EF 28-80mm, f2-f4L USM and I don't care to use it on the crop 1.6x cameras.

For indoor social events the 17-55mm range is much more useful.

You might also consider the Tamron 17-50mm, f2.8 XR Di II. Optically it is very nice although focus is not up to the USM technology used in the previous lenses.

Brett1000

I would also take a look at the Tamron 17-50 2.8 - like Ziggy said it doesn't have USM but the focusing is still fast and it's a little sharper than the Canon at f2.8
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398

Justiceiro

I've never used the 17-50, but I have used the 24-70. I love it. It's fast and the image quality is great. However, the big drawback is that it is heavy. On a 30D it weighs quite a lot.

jeffreaux2

There is no substitute for the Canon 17-55 F2.8IS on a crop body Canon.

It is a consistantly amazing tool....and money well spent.

ziggy53

jeffreaux2 wrote:

There is no substitute for the Canon 17-55 F2.8IS on a crop body Canon.

It is a consistantly amazing tool....and money well spent.

It's one of few lenses that I would replace in an instant if it were lost or broken.

cjphotojapan

After all the great advice I think I am going to get the 17-55 f2.8IS
Thank all of you very much.


John

jeffreaux2

cjphotojapan wrote:

After all the great advice I think I am going to get the 17-55 f2.8IS
Thank all of you very much.


John

You won't be disappointed....I promise....and youll kick yourself for not discovering it sooner!!!:D

jmphotocraft

cjphotojapan wrote:

After all the great advice I think I am going to get the 17-55 f2.8IS
Thank all of you very much.

Great, you'll be happy you did. Just do yourself a favor and put a B+H UV filter on that baby, it's worth it.

This reminds me of how so many people (in real life) ask me for a point-n-shoot recommendation. I give them 3 good ones, and then they go and buy some off-brand POS from Wal-Mart. I'm always like, ok, umm, why did you ask me then?

Glad you took our advice to heart!