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

Which would you prefer?

Results are only viewable after voting.

not generalised at all. Tested a few copies of each lens. Proven from there.
 

for general events a 18-200 IS would do as well especially if you could use flash ;p anyway, not many customers would be looking for CA in photos unless they are photo enthusiasts too.
 

Last edited:
doodah said:
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:
Click to expand...

you mean "good copies of T 17-50 f2.8 are just as good as C17-55"??

I feel like changing all to Primes now :(. Not happy with the Tamron 17-50 at all :(. Color not real.

24-70 is really too heavy. not a walkabout lens.
 

Last edited:
i would go for the 17-55mm IS USM.
i had the 24-70 L and 17-55 and i realised the latter is more practical.

24mm ain't wide enough for weddings.
the L lens doesn't have IS which is essential for weddings (low-light!)

then again,
my 24-70L was strangely suffering from soft-focus.
but i didn't complain because i shoot portraits and i thought the effect was just nice haha.

TS, i have a solution for you - GET BOTH LENSES :D
 

yes, 17-55 is so much more practical than getting 24-70. Other than the build of 24-70 and slightly better in CA control, there is nothing better than 17-55 you should look at if you are using 1.6x cameras. IS rox.

using a full frame with 24-70 now. 24 on full frame is wider than 17 on 1.6x. So bottomline =>

full frame ----> 24-70
crop ----> 17-55 F2.8 IS!

Many people have mentioned this. Just forget about the weather sealing and better build of 24-70 if you are on crop.

runaway1991 said:
i would go for the 17-55mm IS USM.
i had the 24-70 L and 17-55 and i realised the latter is more practical.

24mm ain't wide enough for weddings.
the L lens doesn't have IS which is essential for weddings (low-light!)

then again,
my 24-70L was strangely suffering from soft-focus.
but i didn't complain because i shoot portraits and i thought the effect was just nice haha.

TS, i have a solution for you - GET BOTH LENSES :D
Click to expand...
 

I'm also torn between all these lens that were mentioned. But I really hate the idea of overlapping lens.

I AM now still convincing trying to convince myself that if I need a creamy bolek, I need f1.8 or wider aperture and not the f2.8 from 17-55mm....*although I really would love to have it*

10-22mm + 24-105 mm + flash ex430 for gerneral purpose with landscape and
30 f1.4 for low light with creamy bolek.....
 

Last edited:
Eijnaix said:
I'm also torn between all these lens that were mentioned. But I really hate the idea of overlapping lens.

I AM now still convincing trying to convince myself that if I need a creamy bolek, I need f1.8 or wider aperture and not the f2.8 from 17-55mm....*although I really would love to have it*

10-22mm + 24-105 mm + flash ex430 for gerneral purpose with landscape and
30 f1.4 for low light with creamy bolek.....
Click to expand...

I assume you mean overlapping focal range. Why is that a bad thing? Many lenses are soft at the extreme end of their focal range, so having some overlap gives you more choices, and less need to switch lenses also, unless you carry multiple bodies.

As for bokeh, the 'creaminess' of it is more than a function of the aperture. The following picture was taken with an aperture of 4.0:

medium.jpg
 

24-105 is good but i find f4 irritating at times
 

17-55 is the way to go. Beautiful!
 

Just got my Canon 550D + 17-55 f2.8. As for the filter is there alots of different between B+W UV and Vitacon Premium Series Ultra slim 1mm UV filter multi-coated(Bought this). Should I upgrade to B+W filter
 

Last edited:
kelvinmark said:
Just got my Canon 550D + 17-55 f2.8. As for the filter is there alots of different between B+W UV and Vitacon Premium Series Ultra slim 1mm UV filter multi-coated(Bought this). Should I upgrade to B+W filter
Click to expand...

:bsmilie: B+W is much better. You can consider other filters like Hoya too. ;)
 

I'm using 17-40F4L & 70-200F2.8L ,can be for crop or ff body, y there's no poll?
 

Jeff Heng said:
I'm using 17-40F4L & 70-200F2.8L ,can be for crop or ff body, y there's no poll?
Click to expand...

Bro i really dont see ANY reason to use the 17-40 if you are on a crop sensor. If you are, it can only be one of these things 1)BBB virus, 2)impulse buy, 3) L lens designation for a cheap price.

Any of these 3 reasons is not practical at all, and its a WANT not a need. If you are talking about for a FF, then get the 17-40 after u switch to FF, not before.
 

its in the color of the ring.

i use rubber bands!
 

Was at a company function and the photographer was using 70-200 mk 2, 24-70 + a sigma lens for wa. Personally, I have the 70-200 mk 2 & 17-55. But problem when it starts to drizzle when I am on the 17-55, have to run for cover ... thinking of getting a 24-105 just for slight rain & snow but I do not want to waste $$$. Canon oh ... Canon.
 

raymansg said:
Was at a company function and the photographer was using 70-200 mk 2, 24-70 + a sigma lens for wa. Personally, I have the 70-200 mk 2 & 17-55. But problem when it starts to drizzle when I am on the 17-55, have to run for cover ... thinking of getting a 24-105 just for slight rain & snow but I do not want to waste $$$. Canon oh ... Canon.
Click to expand...

Get the new 24-70mm F2.8L when it is released and sell the 17-55mm???? :think:
 

raymansg said:
Was at a company function and the photographer was using 70-200 mk 2, 24-70 + a sigma lens for wa. Personally, I have the 70-200 mk 2 & 17-55. But problem when it starts to drizzle when I am on the 17-55, have to run for cover ... thinking of getting a 24-105 just for slight rain & snow but I do not want to waste $$$. Canon oh ... Canon.
Click to expand...

At first , the reason I choose 24-105mm over 17-55mm is that it can withstand slight rain but later found that 24mm is not wide enough for indoors.
In the end I got 17-55mm too cause I found 17mm is much better for crop body and the fix f2.8 work much much better in low light area (indoors)

Since then always used this combo :
indoor - 17-55mm (never worry about rain cause only used indoors)
outdoor - 24-105mm (lots of space to move around outdoor and wont running for cover when start to rain).

Personally, it worth every single cents having both cause they serve very different area for me.
 

songuke said:
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. :confused:
Click to expand...

Hmm. U say it will overlap I do not disagree. But what about 17-40 & 24-70 or with 16-35 isn't it worst. You can't compare like this. Both lens is a different type of lens in whole.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
WTBuy: Lens - Canon Canon Rf 24-70
Replies
0
Views
112
Junbing24
J
J
WTBuy: Lens - Canon Canon Rf 24-70
Replies
0
Views
87
Junbing24
J
H
WTBuy: Lens - Sigma Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 ART (Canon EF Mount)
Replies
0
Views
145
houseofscenes
H
H
WTBuy: Lens - Sigma Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 ART
Replies
0
Views
92
houseofscenes
H
M
WTSell: Lens - Sony SAL 70-200mm f2.8 SSM
Replies
0
Views
120
maplestory
M
Back
Top