Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canon 17-55 2.8 or Canon 24 -70 2.8L

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Canon 17-55 2.8 or Canon 24 -70 2.8L

    Hey all,

    I was wondering, if you had the choice which would it be? I currently have a Canon 18-55 "kit lens" and I am looking to upgrade. From what I read both are great lenses but I wanted to see what pros/cons folks would have on one versus the other.

    Currently I have a Canon 50mm 1.8 (gathers dust mostly as I dont do many portraits), the Canon 18-55mm kit lens that came with my original XT (upgraded to a 20D) and a Sigma 70-300 (soon to be replaced with a Canon 70-200mm 2.8 USM L).

    I mainly shoot high school soccer games, landscapes and family events. The 18-55mm kit lens has been pretty good to me but I do think it is time to step up to a big boy lens.

    Thanks!
    Photobucket
    Flickr

  • #2
    Depends: Can you see yourself moving to full-frame in the future? Do you shoot a lot at the wide end of your 18-55?

    If the answer is yes to the first and no to the second (or one of the two), then the 24-70 would likely be better.

    Getting the 24-70, along with the 70-200 youve got planned and your 50mm, you've got all EF lenses, which means the shift to full-frame (a 5DmkIII in the future, perhaps?) is easy stuff.
    I am responsible for what I say; not what you understand.
    adammontpetit.com
    Gear List
    500PX | Graphic Design

    Comment


    • #3
      hmmmm...at this point if I upgraded it would probably be to a 7D or a 50D. The 5DMKII or III is just a little too steep for me. But for now my lil ol 20D is working just fine for me.

      As for if I shoot wide, the answer would have to be yes....I have actually thought that if I bought the 24-70MM it would force me to have to get a 10-22mm too, just because of the 24mm ending up being more like a 38.4mm at the low end.

      I guess my question is more in picture quality between the two lenses. Is the 24-70mm going to bury the 17-55mm or is it more of just a trade off on the distances? If it is just the trade off, I would think I would go with the 17-55
      Photobucket
      Flickr

      Comment


      • #4
        From what Ive seen, the 24-70 is a bit better than the 17-55. But the 17-55 does have IS.

        That being said, I would actually opt for the 24-70 and a 10-20 because it gives you that many more options. Being able to go down to 10 is huge. I've always said that, given my current kit, the next lens I REPLACE would be my 18-70, with a 24-70 or 24-120 because I already have the telephoto and already have the ultrawide (up to 24).
        I am responsible for what I say; not what you understand.
        adammontpetit.com
        Gear List
        500PX | Graphic Design

        Comment


        • #5
          You will notice step up in IQ, build quality and focussing speed with the 24-70.

          See this review.
          Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens Review

          However You may find the 17-55 image stabilisation coming in very handy at times.
          17-55 review
          http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

          Personally I like having wide on my general purpose "walk around" lens.
          I don't own either lenses - I use a Canon 24-105 F4 L IS on a 5D as my walk around/travel combination.
          I do have other lenses.
          Flickr stream.
          http://www.flickr.com/photos/34094515@N00/

          Comment

          Working...
          X