17-55 IS USM or 24-70 L for APS-C

Foxy xoFoxy xo Registered Users Posts: 52 Big grins
edited May 21, 2011 in Accessories
I've done a little research, and heard many people's opinions. But I'd like to hear what you guys think!

I shoot with a 7D, and currently only have an 85 1.8 in my possession.

One of my friends suggested that because I have an 85mm already, I should get the 17-55.

I don't plan on upgrading to FF any time soon, but for some reason, the L glass is pulling me in.

I'm actually starting to get into fashion portraits oddly enough, and do a lot of full body/group shots, events etc

I'm also going to start shooting a lot of video.

I remember the stock 17-55 that I got a few years ago, and boy do I not miss that, one bit! Perhaps not due to the focal length, but because of how slow, light, and poor it felt.

Is the 24-70 perhaps too long for a cropped body?

Looking forward to your feedback!

Comments

  • chrisjohnsonchrisjohnson Registered Users Posts: 772 Major grins
    edited May 21, 2011
    Pretty much everything that could be said on this subject has been said already so I recommend you use the search tool.

    Your comment on the EFS 17-55 IS USM is unusual. Most people like the image quality on this lens (including me) and rate it equivalent to 24-70L. It is more a question how much you value the wide-end (I do) and the IS (I do) when choosing.
  • Foxy xoFoxy xo Registered Users Posts: 52 Big grins
    edited May 21, 2011
    goldenballs wrote: »
    Pretty much everything that could be said on this subject has been said already so I recommend you use the search tool.

    Your comment on the EFS 17-55 IS USM is unusual. Most people like the image quality on this lens (including me) and rate it equivalent to 24-70L. It is more a question how much you value the wide-end (I do) and the IS (I do) when choosing.

    Sorry, it was a typo, and I was talking about the 18-55mm. Of course the lens is not even worth talking about, I just thought I would mention it since it has similar focal length.

    I searched via google, and couldn't find any posts relating to dgrin.
  • ivarivar Registered Users Posts: 8,395 Major grins
    edited May 21, 2011
    Foxy xo wrote: »
    I searched via google, and couldn't find any posts relating to dgrin.
    Search for "canon 17-55 site:dgrin.com" or, even easier, use our custom google search:
    20110521-r3aj53k5e2w7w1qy3gdgmsdcd7.jpg
    thumb.gif
    Ivar
    www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,133 moderator
    edited May 21, 2011
    To quote myself from recent replies:

    The IS is the real deal (it works extremely well and is remarkably handy) and the edge/corner performance is better for landscapes and such. Faster AF too.

    The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is very much "L" optic quality and delivers consistently high quality results.

    The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is a very special, and relatively expensive, general purpose lens. If I had only one lens with me for a Canon crop 1.6x camera, it would be that lens.

    The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is one of a few of my lenses that I would replace immediately if something happened to it. It's a joy to use for wedding and event work and image quality is truly up in "L" class. There are times when I wish it had better build quality but the truth is that the build quality seems sufficient and I don't have any issues or real problems whatsoever.

    It would be my highest recommendation for both social events and a great walk-a-round lens.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited May 21, 2011
    You have to decide between IS and WA (17-55) or more reach and a red ring (which means better BQ, for one thing).
Sign In or Register to comment.