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

RLipp69

hello i am in the market for a new lens and i am looking at canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS or EF 24-70mm f/2.8L.Is the L lens more supeior then the IS lens.i already own the 70-200mm 2.8IS L.I will be doing concert photos.I am always eather in the front row or off to the side.Is it worth giving up the IS and pay a extra $100 for the L Lens.Also i am useing a crop camera(XTI).Any input would be great.Thanks!:scratch

Scott_Quier

I've not held the 24-70L so my opinion is/will be a little lacking. That having been said, and understanding that I have both the 70-200 2.8IS and the 17-55....

I've heard that the optics in the 17-55 are "L" grade and many of my images seem to bear this out. The lens is not built like a tank, but I've no complaints. I use it EVERY time I pull my camera out. It's not the only lens I use, but I use it a lot - it's pretty much my "go to" lens.

As for the IS - I had the same question, "Is the IS needed/useful on a short focal length lens?" so I did some tests. It was basically a series of brick wall shots taken in good light. I would shoot it at number of times at various shutter speeds without the IS engaged. Then I did the same thing with it turned on. My analysis (that's a big word for the pixel peeping that did on the computer) demonstrated for me that as I got closer to the 1/focal length shutter speed, the non-IS shots started to deteriorate - camera shake. With the IS engaged, I got about 2 stops more from it than without it.

So, shooting weddings and receptions (as I do) and knowing that many of the venues are quite dark, the IS is a good investment for me.

YMMV - but that's my view. I certainly hope this helps you in your decision.

claudermilk

Heh, and I can come from the other angle: I have a 24-70 and 70-200 and have not held hte 17-55.

The 24-70 is indeed built like a tank and is a bit heavy. Some don't care for that, personally I don't mind. The intertia from the weight helps steady the camera. To stop motion requires a fast enough shutter speed that IS doesn't come into play much at these shorter focal lengths.

If you can, try and rent the lenses. Take a look at the ClubSmug vendor BorrowLenses--they have both & you can get a discount for being here. Then you can make a better-informed decision than from our limited experiences.

boulderNardo

Well then let me add to this thread as someone who has held and shot with both...

The 17-55 is a GREAT lens. The build does not feel like any other EF-S out there. It balanced well on my 20D, loved the IS, and has great IQ even at f/2.8 IMO. However ... (a) the build does not quite feel like 'L' quality! It's still plasticky, lighter than an L-lens. (b) for my use, it's too wide at 17 and too short at 55, even on a crop body.

The 24-70 L is an AWESOME lens! Absoultely love this baby! Honestly, I really can't tell any difference in IQ from the 17-55 ... MAYBE MAYBE a little sharper at large apertures on the low-focal-end. This L lens feels like an 'L'! Heavier, slightly larger than the 17-55, you can tell the housing is metal, and it balances even better on my 20D than the EF-S lens does. Decision factors that made me go with this lens instead of the 17-55? (a) Most importantly, the focal range fits my walk-around use better, (b) for slightly more money you get hood and leather lens bag!, (c) it just feels sturdier! I feel like I can drop the 24-70 and it wouldn't break immediately, unlike the 17-55 which feels like it could break a lot easier...

Like claudermilk says ... If you can, try the glass! I bought the 17-55 and the 24-70, tried both, and sold the first one on FM for barely any loss. Definitely worth being able to compare them.

Just my 2 cents
Let me know if you have any more specific questions regarding both ...

Cameron

I own the 17-55 but have also shot with the 24-70. I tried both before buying the 17-55 lens. For me, 24mm on a 1.6x crop camera was not wide enough.
BOTH will give you excellent image quality - the optical quality is close enough that it probably shouldn't factor into the decision. Main differences:

1) Zoom range - 17mm vs 24mm on the wide end and 55mm vs 70mm on the long end. I found I missed the wide-angle stuff more than the 55-70mm range. If I'm going to need much telephoto zoom, I'll just throw on my 70-200mm zoom.

2) Build quality - 24-70mm has the edge here, but the 17-55 feels well built. I'm not working in particularly harsh environments, so it wasn't a big factor in my decision. Weigh this with your own needs.

3) Image Stabilization - the 17-55 has it, the 24-70 doesn't. While it's true that it doesn't matter as much on the wide-end, it's still VERY nice to have. No, it's not a substitute for a wider aperture, but makes it easy to hand-hold shots that are pushing the shutter-speed limit. For concert photography you probably won't be using shutter speeds much slower than 1/60 sec anyway due to subject movement. I HAVE taken some nice interior shots of stationary objects without my tripod that I KNOW would not have worked out without the IS (1/6 second exposure).

4) Ego - Ok, if you have to have the red-ring of an L lens, go with the 24-70mm.

Realistically, these are two fabulous lenses and you'd likely be happy with either one.

gryphonslair99

RLipp69 wrote:

hello i am in the market for a new lens and i am looking at canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS or EF 24-70mm f/2.8L.Is the L lens more supeior then the IS lens.i already own the 70-200mm 2.8IS L.I will be doing concert photos.I am always eather in the front row or off to the side.Is it worth giving up the IS and pay a extra $100 for the L Lens.Also i am useing a crop camera(XTI).Any input would be great.Thanks!

Well on thing to consider is that if you decide to step up from your crop camera to a full frame in the future the 17-55 is just an expensive paperweight. I shoot a 40D & 30D and own the 16-35 f2.8L, 24-70 f2.8L and the 70-200 f2.8L. A bit of an investment, but it covers the basic focal range well with fast glass, the quality of the optics are unparalled and no matter what Canon body I end up with next, they are going to work on it.

ziggy53

gryphonslair99 wrote:

Well on thing to consider is that if you decide to step up from your crop camera to a full frame in the future the 17-55 is just an expensive paperweight. ...

Naw. You'll still get the vast majority of your investment back if you sell the lens. A good lens can still have good value on the used market. In the mean time you will have had the use of the lens. What is that worth?

Buy what you need. Don't speculate on what you might need.

colourbox

I agree with much of what has been said about the 17-55. Amazing images, slightly disappointing build. I have not used the 24-70, but that is because in addition to wanting IS I really, really wanted to go as wide as 17mm on my crop body. And that's something to think about.

You say you're going to shoot concerts. Test the 24-70 and see if it's wide enough for the full-width stage band shots you want at your usual vantage point in a venue. If it is, then it's a good choice and will take you out to 70mm for individual performers. If you need to go wider than 24-70, that will be your clue to consider the 17-55, as long as you don't mind only going out to 55mm on that lens.

gryphonslair99 wrote:

Well on thing to consider is that if you decide to step up from your crop camera to a full frame in the future the 17-55 is just an expensive paperweight.

A counter argument from some is that if you hold onto your crop body as your second body, then your crop lens loses no value. I anticipate that will happen with my 17-55 if full frame body prices ever come down to my budget, so I don't worry about my EF-S lenses.

mercphoto

I know people often try to choose between these two lenses but in my opinion its not the correct pair of lenses to choose against. Their focal ranges are too different, they are lenses that do not serve the same purpose. Choose the 17-55 if you need wide, choose the 24-70 if you need more length (or dust sealing, or rapid AF). Seems the 17-40/4L or the 16-35/2.8L are the lenses to compare to the 17-55. The 17-40 is a great lens but at f/4 is too slow for your needs.

First thing, determine if your shooting environment needs wider than 24mm. Next see if it needes longer than 55mm.