Lens upgrade dilemma--help!

Mulder32

Alright, I've been thinking, and now I have a new dilemma. I am (eventually) going to upgrade my lenses. I've decided to narrow down to two paths. They are as follows:

Buy the Canon 17--55 USM IS 2.8 lens and the 70-200 USM IS 2.8

OR

Buy the Canon 24-70 USM 2.8, the 70-200 USM IS 2.8, and the Sigma 18-50 2.8

I shoot weddings, children/family portraits, engagement sessions, and lastly sports.
I guess I'm leaning towards option 1 because it is the cheapest and gives me two IS lenses. However the 17-55 lens is not an "L" lens, while the 24-70 is.

What are your thoughts?

ziggy53

Mulder32 wrote:

... the 17-55 lens is not an "L" lens, while the 24-70 is.

What are your thoughts?

Canon does not have any EF-S "L" series lenses.

The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM is optically the equal of an "L" series lens. It also has very fast focus, just like most "L" lenses.

It does not have the build quality of an "L" lens, but the quality is still very good. I highly recommend this lens for wedding use.

Mulder32

ziggy53 wrote:

Canon does not have any EF-S "L" series lenses.

The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM is optically the equal of an "L" series lens. It also has very fast focus, just like most "L" lenses.

It does not have the build quality of an "L" lens, but the quality is still very good. I highly recommend this lens for wedding use.

So you're saying the 24-70 is more "beefy" or "weighty" compared to the 17-55?

ziggy53

Mulder32 wrote:

So you're saying the 24-70 is more "beefy" or "weighty" compared to the 17-55?

I believe the EF 24-70mm, f2.8L is constructed of a cast and machined metal tube chassis, where the EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS appears to be a structural, fiber filled plastic, cast and then probably lightly machined.

I have the older EF 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L and it is a beast. I also have the EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS and I do love it on the Canon 40D camera.

I also have the older Sigma 18-50mm, f/2.8 EX DC (non "macro") and it is very high quality optics. It does not have the quality of the Canon equivalent and it does not focus as quickly. It also misses focus a bit, but you can usually see it happen.

Scott_Quier

Mulder32 wrote:

So you're saying the 24-70 is more "beefy" or "weighty" compared to the 17-55?

There's a reason why the 24-70 f/2.8L is called the "brick" - it's a quite heavy beast. Great optics, but quite heavy.

Getting back to the OP - I would also highly recommend the first option. Why? Because that's what I've got . Seriously, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is not a "L" lens but the optics are spot on and the construction is beefy enough that you should not have any worries about lens issues if you treat the lens with just a touch of respect. It is my lens of choice for indoor work.

In terms of weight, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is a real monster. But, the optics are stellar! It does take some time to get accustomed to using it. Frequent trips to the weight room might be in order there

The IS on both of these lenses is somewhere between quite good and wonderful. Depending on the speed of motion of your subjects, the IS is like drugs. Once you use it, it's hard to consider buying a lens that doesn't have it.

Some have said that IS does not play a significant role in shorter focal length lenses. Well, don't believe everything you read on the internet (including this post ). I tested the 17-55. It was a while ago, so specifics are hard to come by, but ... hand held, shutter speed too slow - it was easy to determine which photos were taken with the IS on and which were taken with if off. When comparing to shots taken with camera mounted on tripod, well .... the tripod shots won every time - no surprise there

IS doesn't stop subject motion, but it has allowed me to leave the tripod in the car when I otherwise would not have been able to do so.

jeffreaux2

If you decide on the 17-55F2.8IS you will never regret it. IF you ever decide to go full frame, I am sure it will retain resale value so that you don't even regret it then.

It is a sweet lens, and the IS is definately intoxicating!!!

Cameron

Mulder32 wrote:

So you're saying the 24-70 is more "beefy" or "weighty" compared to the 17-55?

The 24-70 is 950g or 2.1lbs. The 17-55 645g or 1.4lbs. I own the 17-55 and while the build quality is not as good as the 24-70, it certainly isn't "wimpy". The 17-55 is my most used lens and I love it.

Your first option, to me, makes far more sense. No need to duplicate your range with two lenses (24-70, 18-55). As has been mentioned, the 17-55 does not carry the L designation, but I'd venture to say it's optically the equal of the 24-70.. Besides, it's lighter, and has image-stabilization which makes it even more enjoyable to use. If you're not going to get a full-frame body right now, get the 17-55 - you'll love it!

rpcrowe

I own both the 17-55 and 24-70L lenses
I love both of them however, the 17-55mm has become my go-to lens for general shooting while I tend to use the 24-70L mostly in my studio.

I LIKE THE 17-55MM BECAUSE:

1. It is lighter than the 24-70L
2. I don't generally need a wider lens (matches well with a 70-200mm L (series) lens
3. It has wonderfully spectacular IQ
4. The build is perfectly adequate for general use
5. The IS makes it a nice low light glass

I LIKE THE 24-70L BECAUSE:

1. I like the extra 15mm on the long side in my studio and don't need the wider lens for that work
2. It also has spectacular IQ
3. The weight and bulk doesn't bother me for studio work
4. I can achieve 1:3.5 imagery with this lens (the 17-55mm gives me only 1:6) which means that I can often shoot close-up images without resorting to a macro lens
5. The build is absolutely sturdy - I fell on concrete with my 30D and 24-70L taking the weight of my 220 pounds. The lens hood was toast but the lens was fine. This is the lens I would select if I were to do combat photography again (which thankfully I won't)

I LIKE BOTH BECAUSE:

The imagery from both these lenses is fantastic. They are sharp and crisp! I was using a 28-135mm IS lens prior to getting the 24-70L and the L glass cut down my need for post production "tweaking" considerably.

FINAL JUDGEMENT:

I bought the 24-70L used before the 17-55mm came out. I got it for a very good price, from a working professional, at the time that Canon released the 24-105L IS lens. I loved everything about the lens except that it was heavy. The focal length did not concern me because I had a 12-24mm Tokina on another body to use when I needed to go wide. Luckily I can afford to keep both lenses.

However, if I were to decide between the 17-55mm and 24-70L for general photo work; I would select the 17-55mm because I believe it is the ultimate lens for a 1.6x camera. It makes a a wonderful and relatively light package with the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens. These two lenses on a pair of bodies are simply a super great combination and are my normal go-to combination for both travel and every day shooting.

claudermilk

I can only relate the path I have taken, which is similar to option 2. I currently have a triad of lenses: Tokina's 12-24/4 and Canon's 24-70/2.8L & 70-200/2.8L. I find that this combination works very well for me (it also happens by pure coincidence to seamlessly cover from 12mm to 200mm--not my main intent).

I'm not bothered by the weight of the bricks at all. I consider it a benefit overall as the inertia elps me keep things stable when handholding. I only start to feel the weight of the 70-200 after many, many hours of shooting.

You may have noticed a lack of IS at all. It is a nice tool & I frequently used a 70-200/2.8L IS before adding my own non-IS copy. That was mainly dictated by available finances, unavailability of the loaner or rentals & a major shoot coming up; however, I honestly don't miss it. I guess I have a resistance to the IS addiction. That said, my next planned lens will likely have a form of it (300/4L IS, Sigma 100-300/4EX OS, or something similar).

Mulder32

The decision
Thanks for all your input; it's help me make a choice that's for sure. I'm going to upgrade to a 20D and go with option one. Money is tight right now and I have a couple weddings coming up, so the money I had originally saved up for the Sigma lens to cover the difference when I sell my 10D and upgrade. Then, I'll sell my drumset to buy the 17-55. Where the money will come from for the 70-200 is a mystery right now! Probably use some of the money I make from the weddings. Well, that's my train of thought right now anyway!

Scott_Quier

Mulder32 wrote:

Thanks for all your input; it's help me make a choice that's for sure. I'm going to upgrade to a 20D and go with option one. Money is tight right now and I have a couple weddings coming up, so the money I had originally saved up for the Sigma lens to cover the difference when I sell my 10D and upgrade. Then, I'll sell my drumset to buy the 17-55. Where the money will come from for the 70-200 is a mystery right now! Probably use some of the money I make from the weddings. Well, that's my train of thought right now anyway!

You won't regret the choices on the lenses. If you can swing it, the 30D is a better choice than the 20D (I have both). There are two differences that can play an important roll when working weddings:

1. The buffer of the 30D is larger and faster to unload - this gives you more shots per burst for those times that you need to push the envelop.
2. In low-light situations, the 30D AF hunts somewhat less then does that of the 20D. This can be the difference between getting the shot and missing it.