Upgrading to FF. Replacing my EF-S 17-55mm cost effectively?

kcui · April 19, 2012

I'm looking to replace my EF-S 17-55mm lens since I will be upgrading to a 5D MKII. I pretty much have my heart set on an L-Series lens, however the closest I can get to the 17-55 is the EF 16-35 f/2.8L II.

Unfortunately I really would like something that goes a bit further than 35mm while still retaining the wide-angle reach at 17mm. It seems to me the only way to do this with the Canon L lenses are to buy BOTH the 16-35mm and either 24-70mm, or the 24-105mm. Obviously that can get expensive...

Are there any suggestions on what glass I could replace my 17-55mm with? I am more comfortable with Canon but I would be willing to look at comparable Sigma or Tokina lenses if the quality is there.

Thanks!

cmason · April 19, 2012

First off, know that moving to FF changes the perceived focal length of the lenses. Your 17-55 on your APS-C (1.6x factor) sensor had a similar field of view as 'narrower, and longer' lenses do on a FF sensor. This is a big benefit of APS-C cameras for wildlife and sports shooters: you can get really long length with relatively short and cheaper lenses.

So, the 55mm on APS-C actually has a similar field of view like a 88mm lens on a FF frame camera, while 17mm functions like a 27mm lens on a FF camera. Therefore, to get similar perceived focal length on your new 5D, you can go with the 24-105 f/4L, or nearly match it with the 24-70 f/2.8L, giving up a bit in the telephoto side.

jmphotocraft · April 19, 2012

What cmason said. Basically, your lens on your 7D equates to 27-88 f/4.5 on Full Frame. The direct replacement would be the 24-105 f/4L IS, but I prefer the 24-70 f/2.8L for true f/2.8. I went from the 17-55 to the 24-70 and I do not miss the extra reach or the IS. I do appreciate the extra speed and DOF control.

Cost effective? The 17-55/2.8IS is excellent, you're not going to duplicate that quality for cheap. Best bet is to sell your 17-55 and buy a used 24-70L or 24-105L. You will probably be able to find the 105 for less dosh, but, f/4 is half the light of f/2.8.

divamum · April 19, 2012

There's a huge thread on this a couple of weeks back (started by user eoren) - have a hunt, since it was a long and useful discussion on exactly this....

ETA: Here's the thread

ziggy53 · April 19, 2012

I pretty much agree with the above.

When I discuss lenses, I often refer to the application or use of the lens, rather than the specific focal length(s) involved. The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is a "standard" or "normal" zoom lens of constant f2.8 aperture for the Canon crop 1.6x camera bodies.

I continue to use a very old Canon EF 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L USM that would be a very good match in terms of FOV on a FF body. You can find them in good condition at considerably less cost than the current EF 24-70mm, f2.8L USM, but the 28-80mm, f2.8-f4 "L" is no longer supported or repaired by Canon. Still, image quality is very good on a Canon FF body, and I won't replace it until it breaks.

The Canon EF 24-85mm, f3.5-4.5 USM is an older consumer zoom that the reviewers generally pan, but it's a very good value and image quality is better than the cost. That's the lens I use to back up the 28-80mmL.

A lens that some professionals use with the crop 1.3x and FF bodies is the Canon EF 28-135mm, f3.5-5.6 IS USM, but I personally feel that the aperture is too slow for indoor and event work. Image quality is OK, but certainly not "L" quality.

Some folks like the Tamron 28-75mm, f2.8 XR Di LD on a FF body, but I think that edge and corner sharpness suffer at large apertures and the above 24-85mm USM is a much better value overall.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=366&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=119&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Most of these lenses are reviewed and tested:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff

divamum · April 19, 2012

Also, there's the anticipated Tamron 24-70 VC. It's not out yet, but given the announcements I'd expect some reviews to be appearing soon. I'm following it with interest, since my Tamron 17-50 is an excellent lens; if the new lens can match sharpness and is a decent price, it may well be a viable alternative to the 24-70L.

eoren1 · April 19, 2012

I'm in the same boat as you and started the thread Divamum referenced. I'm still waiting to purchase the 5d (mk iii in my case) and have settled on the following:
17-40/4
70-200/4 IS
Either 24/28/35 prime
Either 85/100/135 prime
While the 24-105/4 is the direct equivalent of the 17-55 that I recently sold, it does not take full advantage of the increased dof that you get from the ff sensor
-take all of this with a grain of salt as I don't yet own the ff camera but did get the 17-40 after selling my 17-55

Stuart-M · April 19, 2012

eoren1 wrote: »

I'm in the same boat as you and started the thread Divamum referenced. I'm still waiting to purchase the 5d (mk iii in my case) and have settled on the following:
17-40/4
70-200/4 IS
Either 24/28/35 prime
Either 85/100/135 prime
While the 24-105/4 is the direct equivalent of the 17-55 that I recently sold, it does not take full advantage of the increased dof that you get from the ff sensor
-take all of this with a grain of salt as I don't yet own the ff camera but did get the 17-40 after selling my 17-55

The 24-105 is actually the most similar lens to the 17-55 when you consider that the larger sensor offsets the f/4 aperture regarding DoF.

If you wand shallower DoF however, the 24-70 is a better option. Personally, I like the 24/50/135mm L primes and zooming with my feet

Brett1000 · April 20, 2012

Stuart-M wrote: »

The 24-105 is actually the most similar lens to the 17-55 when you consider that the larger sensor offsets the f/4 aperture regarding DoF.

If you wand shallower DoF however, the 24-70 is a better option. Personally, I like the 24/50/135mm L primes and zooming with my feet

right, for zooms the Canon 24-70 2.8 or 24-105 are good choices - or maybe the new Tamron 24-70 VC

Matthew Saville · April 22, 2012

kcui wrote: »

I'm looking to replace my EF-S 17-55mm lens since I will be upgrading to a 5D MKII. I pretty much have my heart set on an L-Series lens, however the closest I can get to the 17-55 is the EF 16-35 f/2.8L II.

Unfortunately I really would like something that goes a bit further than 35mm while still retaining the wide-angle reach at 17mm. It seems to me the only way to do this with the Canon L lenses are to buy BOTH the 16-35mm and either 24-70mm, or the 24-105mm. Obviously that can get expensive...

Are there any suggestions on what glass I could replace my 17-55mm with? I am more comfortable with Canon but I would be willing to look at comparable Sigma or Tokina lenses if the quality is there.

Thanks!

See, that's the whole problem with jumping from crop to full-frame. To "match" the 17-55 OS, you'll need either the Tamron 24-70 VC, or maybe "settle" for the un-stabilized Canon 24-70 mk2. The EF-S 17-55 IS is THAT sharp. Stepping up to the original 24-70 L, you won't be too blown away by the sharpness unless you get a flawless copy of the lens. Even then, you're not milking as much performance out of it as you could with a 24-70 mk2, probably.

For all of those who argue that the original Canon 24-70 is simply the cat's pajamas and is totally sharp etc, ....Well then WHY is the mk2 costing almost $1K more and still un-stabilized?

Anyways- Honestly it really depends what you shoot, but if I were you I might consider anything from the Tamron 24-70 VC, to the original Canon 24-70, or the mk2 24-70, or the 24-105 L with a couple primes for shallow DOF etc. ...the list goes on.

Let's start by simply asking, what do you shoot?

Also, note the statements by others about how 17mm on crop is NOT equivalent to 17mm on full-frame. If you actually do want that focal length on full-frame though, you'll have to buy BOTH a 16-35 and a 24-70, or a 17-40 and 24-105, etc... There simply is no f/2.8 zoom that can do what you may or may not be asking about. Hopefully you can just start with a 24-70 2.8 though, and that'll fill your needs for now.

=Matt=

kcui · April 24, 2012

Thanks everyone for the responses. I also checked out the older thread on this topic.

I'll let you know what I end up with!

kcui · April 24, 2012

Matthew Saville wrote: »

See, that's the whole problem with jumping from crop to full-frame. To "match" the 17-55 OS, you'll need either the Tamron 24-70 VC, or maybe "settle" for the un-stabilized Canon 24-70 mk2. The EF-S 17-55 IS is THAT sharp. Stepping up to the original 24-70 L, you won't be too blown away by the sharpness unless you get a flawless copy of the lens. Even then, you're not milking as much performance out of it as you could with a 24-70 mk2, probably.

For all of those who argue that the original Canon 24-70 is simply the cat's pajamas and is totally sharp etc, ....Well then WHY is the mk2 costing almost $1K more and still un-stabilized?

Anyways- Honestly it really depends what you shoot, but if I were you I might consider anything from the Tamron 24-70 VC, to the original Canon 24-70, or the mk2 24-70, or the 24-105 L with a couple primes for shallow DOF etc. ...the list goes on.

Let's start by simply asking, what do you shoot?

Also, note the statements by others about how 17mm on crop is NOT equivalent to 17mm on full-frame. If you actually do want that focal length on full-frame though, you'll have to buy BOTH a 16-35 and a 24-70, or a 17-40 and 24-105, etc... There simply is no f/2.8 zoom that can do what you may or may not be asking about. Hopefully you can just start with a 24-70 2.8 though, and that'll fill your needs for now.

=Matt=

I am mainly a hobbyist who shoots nature, landscapes, and architecture. I'm been doing more urban and close up portraits of late, however. I know the 2.8 isn't as important for the types of shots I take, but I do love playing with DOF effects when I do use it.

Overfocused · April 24, 2012

Shamleless plug: I have a MKII for sale /cough

Upgrading to FF. Replacing my EF-S 17-55mm cost effectively?

Comments