EF 24-70L 2.8 or EF-S 17-55 IS 2.8?

[steamboatscott]

I've decided to upgrade to a fixed aperture, but I can't decide between the Canon EF 24-70L f/2.8 without IS or the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 with IS. Obviously I have a 1.6x crop (XSi), so the EF-S will work for me now, but not if I upgrade to full frame. The primary reason I'm leaning toward the EF-S instead of the EF/L is the image stabilization. I've already heard the comments about IS not being needed at the 24-70 range and am not really interested in repeating this. IMHO 24-70 on a 1.6x crop does need IS, and even if it doesn't need it, it's great to have.

Reviews on the-digital-picture.com (THE source I trust for reviews) gives the sharpness award to the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 over the 24-70L f/2.8.

I also figure that the 17-55 f/2.8 will likely hold a decent resale value, but even if I have to loose a couple hundred on selling it used if I upgrade to full frame...that's a fraction of the cost of the full frame dSLR ($2600+).

Any other thoughts from others would be greatly appreciated. I will be using this lens in what I would call a semi-pro scenario - meaning photography is not my job, but I offer my services to others to pay for my lens habits

[Quo Fan]

I have the 24-70 f4L without IS and have never said to myself "I wish I had IS on this lens".

It is not entirely what others think you should buy, it is what you will be happy with. If you think you will be happier with the EF-S lens, then by all means, buy it. If you are still on the fence, I would always go with L glass.

[sybren]

The 17-55 f/2.8 is really a great lens. It's my sharpest lens, and its colour rendition is very good. The IS also helps in the sharpness area when you're hand-holding the camera.

The glass of the 17-55 f/2.8 is of L-quality. It doesn't have weather sealing, doesn't come with a lens hood, and is EF-S, which are the reasons that it doesn't carry the "L" moniker. In other words: optically it is of L-quality.

[steamboatscott]

I have pretty much made up my mind to stick with the 17-55. Now I'm wondering if I should wait for the Tamron 17-55 2.8 w/ VC or just spring for the Canon. I've seen a few reviews of the Tamron version for the Nikkon. Seems like it's about as equal optical quality, but just lacks the USM focus etc.

[sybren]

The USM is part of why I like the lens so much. Full-time manual override is pretty useful, and the fast, quiet and accurate focus is nice too.

[jdepould]

VR/IS on a midrange zoom is all about marketing. 24-70 on a crop sensor may not be ideal, depending on what you want to do.

[sybren]

Originally Posted by jdepould

VR/IS on a midrange zoom is all about marketing.

Can you refer to some sources that back up that claim?

Maybe I've been completely brainwashed by the marketing department of Canon, but I sure can tell the difference between an enabled and disabled IS switch on my lens when I'm shooting in dark conditions without a tripod.

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by sybren

Can you refer to some sources that back up that claim?

Maybe I've been completely brainwashed by the marketing department of Canon, but I sure can tell the difference between an enabled and disabled IS switch on my lens when I'm shooting in dark conditions without a tripod.

Nikon Professional Services product spe******t? Personal experience?

It's gotta be pretty dark to run into shutter speed problems at those focal lengths with the current generation of bodies. If you're going to make my 24-70 bigger and more expensive, give me more aperture, not VR.

[sybren]

Originally Posted by jdepould

Nikon Professional Services product spe******t? Personal experience?

Hah, you're trying to make Canon look weak and puny! I've discovered your treachery!

It's gotta be pretty dark to run into shutter speed problems at those focal lengths with the current generation of bodies. If you're going to make my 24-70 bigger and more expensive, give me more aperture, not VR.

It really depends on your hands. I don't always want to sacrifice depth of field either.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by jdepould

VR/IS on a midrange zoom is all about marketing.

At least on the f/2.8 lenses. There have been a few times I would have liked some VR on my 18-70, but it's, at best, half a stop slower and, at worst, a full stop and a third slower than an f/2.8. That half stop is often all I would need.

Of course, 18-70 on a crop is a 27-105, which is considerably longer than the 24-70 is when on a full-frame.