Canon 17-55mm / Canon 24-70mm & Canon 70-200mm

[grantyale]

Canon 24-70mm & Canon 70-200mm, if possible...
Will not go into EFS lens anymore. If you are using 1.6 Crop now, later when you go FF you will discover the wonders of these lenses

And suffer the extra weight, lack of IS, and less useful range before then?

 

[soons]

And suffer the extra weight, lack of IS, and less useful range before then?

Depends on the photographer's preference. I can leave with the range of 28-75mm on my crop, after I got my 10-22mm.

But true, 17-55mm offers more value for money in my POV.

 

[engrmariano]

yeah, its all once photographers preference...

but my suggestion is, get what you need right now, dont think too much what you'll be needing in the future.

(its like... when you bought your shoes when you were 7yrs old, did you thought of buying bigger size so you can still use it when you reach 18yrs old?:nono

 

[dkwong99]

My aim are 17-55mm f/2.8 + 70-200 IS II f/2.8

 

[c-more]

My aim are 17-55mm f/2.8 + 70-200 IS II f/2.8

Me too. But very ex..$$$$

 

[theory87]

You stated event. But how far away from the target will you be? I guess if you know how far away you are from the target, you will have no problem choosing the lens.

 

[leowyien]

Which is sharper? The 24-70 is more expensive by 800 bucks... I'm DREAMING of this combo by the way...

 

[skyknight]

I lean towards the combination of 24-70mm and 70-200mm. For wide angle shots, I have got the 10-22mm. Its a lovely UWA lens. You can explore the option. There are simply some shots that the 17mm is not wide enough.

 

[pattanct]

17-55

wide is better then long, some time you can walk forward (to an extend of cos, not falling into the valley) but you can't walk backward anymore...

and later, plus another 10-22...

 

[Shutter Journey]

Hi guys, need your opinion. Would you prefer to use a Canon 17-55 OR 24-70mm with a 70-200mm? For General Event Photography...

Why dun you just get the EF28-300mm?

 

[pattanct]

Why dun you just get the EF28-300mm?

i read that this 28-300L is just a so so overall lens, convenient but not the best compared carrying few lenses.

 

[doodah]

No contest. 17-55 f/2.8 IS unless the new (and hopefully improved) 24-70 f/2.8 IS shows up. :bsmilie: I hope you are strictly talking about APS-C cameras.

 

[AL1974]

I have this dilemma between 17-55 & 24-70/24-105.
On a crop 1.6X, no intention to move FF yet
I have studied tons of photos between the two sects and my conclusion is that 17-55 has best focal range for crop and sharpnest but lacks the 'omp' in colour rendition and tone.
24-70 on the other hand is heavy and lacks the wide focal range & IS
24-105 IS seems to solve the problem of lighter lens and longer zoom but IQ slightly falls back against 24-70
But both will need another 17-40mm lens to supplement the wider range
Errr after writing this, I seems to give myself an answer to my dilemma
17-40 +24-105 + 70-200, only thing is 3 lens instead of just two - cost issue again

 

[songuke]

The Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 looks appealing to me. But how is it compared to the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8? A lot of people claim that the Tamron is very sharp. Is the Canon one sharper than that?

Also on a crop 1.6x right now. My point is if I don't want a 10-22mm in the future, then I'll go for 17-55mm f/2.8. Otherwise, maybe 10-22mm and 24-70mm f/2.8 combo is better as the range does not overlap. The combo 10-22mm and 17-55mm seems a bit wasteful, 5mm overlapped.

 

[doodah]

The Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 looks appealing to me. But how is it compared to the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8? A lot of people claim that the Tamron is very sharp. Is the Canon one sharper than that?

Also on a crop 1.6x right now. My point is if I don't want a 10-22mm in the future, then I'll go for 17-55mm f/2.8. Otherwise, maybe 10-22mm and 24-70mm f/2.8 combo is better as the range does not overlap. The combo 10-22mm and 17-55mm seems a bit wasteful, 5mm overlapped.

a) Good copies of C17-55 f/2.8 IS are just as good as T17-50 f/2.8. Only differences: service/calibration, USM and IS. Don't even think of VC version of Tamron: it's optically atrocious.

b) Well, you may want to consider the new Sigma 8-16 (looks very sharp... assuming no decentering issues) + 17-55 f/2.8 IS. No worries about overlap and you get SUPER wide angle views. :bsmilie:

 

[pattanct]

I have this dilemma between 17-55 & 24-70/24-105.
On a crop 1.6X, no intention to move FF yet
I have studied tons of photos between the two sects and my conclusion is that 17-55 has best focal range for crop and sharpnest but lacks the 'omp' in colour rendition and tone.
24-70 on the other hand is heavy and lacks the wide focal range & IS
24-105 IS seems to solve the problem of lighter lens and longer zoom but IQ slightly falls back against 24-70
But both will need another 17-40mm lens to supplement the wider range
Errr after writing this, I seems to give myself an answer to my dilemma
17-40 +24-105 + 70-200, only thing is 3 lens instead of just two - cost issue again

why have you not consider 10-22 + 24-105IS + 70-200IS

10-22 really change the way we see things from the viewfinder...

 

[Soundaholic]

I assume you're using crop body.
17-55 over the 24-70 obviously. Note that 17-55 is slightly sharper also.
But for me, I would prefer a fast wide angle prime to cover events, something like a 30mm F1.4

 

[AL1974]

Yes, u r right. Will consider 10-22 over 17-40 for a really wide perspective :bigeyes:

 

[koljaho]

17-55 has more CA on the sides compared to 24-70.

 

[Radiant]

Why dun you just get the EF28-300mm?

Can't help noticing your gear. I bet you have all the lenses and camera bodies to back up your recommendations. Plus able to discuss between canon and sony systems.