17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-70mm f2.8
- Thread starter Turbonetics
- Start date
- Status
Teegongkia
Senior Member
IMO, i feel that the 17-55mm that i owned previously to be slightly sharper than my 24-70mm.
Please also considered weight to be a factor. If you are carrying it and shooting non-stop for 2-3 days consecutively, I'm pretty sure that u will miss the weight of 17-55mm.
Please also considered weight to be a factor. If you are carrying it and shooting non-stop for 2-3 days consecutively, I'm pretty sure that u will miss the weight of 17-55mm.
not to mention that you have to bring another WA/UWA to cover the wide angle if you choose the 24-70L for a crop body.
24 x 1.6 = 38.4mm, which is hardly wide.
Purance
Member
Red ring ppl look at stare.... No red ring ppl just glance..... =S
ok jokes aside.
I'd stand by the 24-70, less headaches when the sudden calling of the full frame comes
(Instead of selling 1 item u need to sell 2 which results in a higher loss).... =D
And also the factor of it's build, weather sealing gives you a peace of mind if you happen to love the rain.
IQ wise since most claim the 17-55 is slightly better, it won't make a huge difference.
ok jokes aside.
I'd stand by the 24-70, less headaches when the sudden calling of the full frame comes
(Instead of selling 1 item u need to sell 2 which results in a higher loss).... =D
And also the factor of it's build, weather sealing gives you a peace of mind if you happen to love the rain.
IQ wise since most claim the 17-55 is slightly better, it won't make a huge difference.
I think another factor to consider is the reputed wide variance in optical quality of the 24-70mm lens... some specimens are quite sharp, but many find theirs 'soft'.
In contrast, the feedback from 17-55mm users seem to be all positive... at least with regards to the IQ.
Which is just another reason why logically speaking, i think the 17-55mm makes more sense to a crop sensor user. But as Purance pointed out, it doesn't generate as much 'lens envy' as the 24-70L will... if that's a factor governing your lens purchase decision. :bsmilie:
In contrast, the feedback from 17-55mm users seem to be all positive... at least with regards to the IQ.
Which is just another reason why logically speaking, i think the 17-55mm makes more sense to a crop sensor user. But as Purance pointed out, it doesn't generate as much 'lens envy' as the 24-70L will... if that's a factor governing your lens purchase decision. :bsmilie:
Last edited:
ShaneKua
Senior Member
No offence, but I’ve found the 50 f1.8’s color and contrast rather crap compared to the 17-55. You’ll have to stop down to f2.8 to get back contrast, and by then, well you might as well use 17-55 wide open. I sold my 50mm shortly after getting my 17-55.
To the TS, you might also consider what you’re shooting. 24-70 gives you a more useful range for portraits on a crop, but you suffer should you need a wide angle for contextual shots (ie during events)
To the TS, you might also consider what you’re shooting. 24-70 gives you a more useful range for portraits on a crop, but you suffer should you need a wide angle for contextual shots (ie during events)
Natsu
New Member
It's called "planning ahead" buddy, and unless TS or anyone for that matter has bootloads of cash to splurge, then your strategy is fine.
If budget is a little tight like mine, then a different approach and some "planning ahead" is necessary to save me some valuable $$!
chooster
New Member
agree... If ppl are not going to upgrade to FF for the next 3 year, then just buy 17-55mm. The focal length is more ideal for crop anyway.
No offence taken Shane. I found that too with the 50mm 1.8 mounted onto the 50D and shot wide open. Its even worse on the canon 50mm f1.4. I bought it and i sold it 2 weeks later.
The 50D was my first DSLR but i decided to dump it. I was never happy with the 50D's colours. And later i figured out the poor colour was more so related to the camera body than the lens. I was so frustrated with the 50D's colours I wanted to jump to Nikon but thankfully i didn't else I would have lost a lot of money. I believe quite a few people have jumped to Nikon for its beautiful colours.
The Digic II generation cameras were so much better in that aspect..although my experience is limited to the 5Dc and 1D Mark IIN. Its hard to describe the image quality from these 2 cameras...but all i can say is that the images shine and is not related to colour saturation. Its almost impossible to bring out the 'shine' with post processing. On a side note, these 2 cameras respond very nicely to mild PP but already appear very good without PP assuming the images are shot with 'standard' picture style.
The picture I posted above was shot at f1.8 around 11am with the sun shining brightly overhead. Not enough contrast?
Later this year I will be overseas for quite a while and I intend to sell off the Mark IIN and re-acquire the 5Dc. I did fondle with the idea of getting the 5D2 or maybe a 7D but I figured until Canon introduce their new Digic 5 range of cameras, I will stick with Digic II. My experience with the 50D and 7D(both equipped with Digic 4) didn't impress. I havent got the chance to try out a 5D2 yet though.
Just my 2cents. Sorry for the OT
To the TS, get the 17-55. This lens will last you all the way until you decide to jump to fullframe. This lens seems to hold its 2nd hand value better than the 24-70 which recently took a dip along with the 24-105. If you're afraid of losing money then its not so wise to get the 24-70 especially with people frequently starting rumors of the 24-70 with IS. Its price will only fall further.
Turbonetics
Senior Member
thanks everybody for the replies...
after reading all the feedbacks,i feel that both of these lenses are quite competitive in the IQ...
so after reading,i had made up my mind and bought the 24-70mm...
because based on my previous shooting style,i seldom shoot in the range between 17-24mm..
what's bad about this lens is the lack of IS,but its fine with me as the zoom is up to 70mm which i may use the high FPS to compensate it at longer focal length..
i do have a strong feelings that Canon may come out with an IS version,but i guess it should cost at least $2.2k..
after deep consideration,the extra few hundreds more iam paying will be for the fact that "L" lenses are build to lasts,the constant F/2.8 aperture covers a wider focal length..
after reading all the feedbacks,i feel that both of these lenses are quite competitive in the IQ...
so after reading,i had made up my mind and bought the 24-70mm...
because based on my previous shooting style,i seldom shoot in the range between 17-24mm..
what's bad about this lens is the lack of IS,but its fine with me as the zoom is up to 70mm which i may use the high FPS to compensate it at longer focal length..
i do have a strong feelings that Canon may come out with an IS version,but i guess it should cost at least $2.2k..
after deep consideration,the extra few hundreds more iam paying will be for the fact that "L" lenses are build to lasts,the constant F/2.8 aperture covers a wider focal length..
alux0417
Member
good pick. at this focal length, IS is not a big factor imho. just hone your hand-holding skills.
DarkLord79
New Member
Or get a good tripod. =)
anyone here who had used the 17-55, sold and got the 24-70..? or the other way round.. any regrets? any feedbacks? i am currently using 17-55, thinking got 24-70.. wat do i lose and gain?
you will lose the wide end + IS and gain a red ring + quite a fair bit of weight.
i dun really need wide end and i miss this extra 15mm.. how?
- Status
Similar threads
