Canon EF 24-70 f2.8 vs EF-S 17-55 f2.8

[Goldenstars08]

I choose Canon EF 24-70 F/2.8 L.
Because:
~It is L quality glass.
~Can use in film SLR.
~24mm on 'FF' is wider than EF-S 17 x 1.6 crop=26mm
~Is my choice...........

 

[Denosha]

I'll probably get the EF-S 17-55 because it fills a current need. I think it's important to look at when it's feasible to move to FF from the view of one's own pocket. For me that's many more years so for the amount of time utility I'll get out of the EF-S lens, i think it's worth it. Furthermore, it doesn't mean if you move to FF, you have to get rid of your 1.6x system right?

 

[David]

If u foresee using a 1.6x DSLR for some time get the 17-55mm IS one. The 24-70 is not here nor there for such bodies.

But comparing the 24-70mm on a FF DSLR and the 17-55 IS on a 1.6x one, I'd still put my buck on the IS version. It's cheaper, comes with IS and less bulkier, lighter! Same aperture as the L also. What more can u ask?

With digital photography, I find L or no L makes little diff to the pic quality. U have photoshop also remember? On screen, u can't tell the diff without heavy cropping... Even compact digicams are improving so much lately. And unless perhaps u print beyond A3, it's also difficult to tell which is which. I feel digital prints is not there yet to magnify the strengths of lenses.

And for pete's sake, whoever views their images cropped to 100%?!! Neither do u take pics of lines per mm charts on normal days so throw out the MTF graphs please! Good to know but useless to base upon them to decide whether to buy a certain lens or not.

Today's Canon lenses kiss a** type man. So far EF-S lenses have been performing well in terms of image quality. It's fast and quiet enuff too.

The only thing L lenses are shiok for compared to other lenses is the solid built quality. That's for sure.

 

[NorthernLights]

If u foresee using a 1.6x DSLR for some time get the 17-55mm IS one. The 24-70 is not here nor there for such bodies.

But comparing the 24-70mm on a FF DSLR and the 17-55 IS on a 1.6x one, I'd still put my buck on the IS version. It's cheaper, comes with IS and less bulkier, lighter! Same aperture as the L also. What more can u ask?

With digital photography, I find L or no L makes little diff to the pic quality. U have photoshop also remember? On screen, u can't tell the diff without heavy cropping... Even compact digicams are improving so much lately. And unless perhaps u print beyond A3, it's also difficult to tell which is which. I feel digital prints is not there yet to magnify the strengths of lenses.

And for pete's sake, whoever views their images cropped to 100%?!! Neither do u take pics of lines per mm charts on normal days so throw out the MTF graphs please! Good to know but useless to base upon them to decide whether to buy a certain lens or not.

Today's Canon lenses kiss a** type man. So far EF-S lenses have been performing well in terms of image quality. It's fast and quiet enuff too.

The only thing L lenses are shiok for compared to other lenses is the solid built quality. That's for sure.

The thread is aboyt 1.6x crop bodies.

Also got 1.3x crop ones.

 

[slacker123]

wiser to invest in the 24-70 and just pair it up with a 70-200

with the trend of the 5D.. perhaps in another few years time.. we'll be seeing affordable entry level full frame digital SLRs...

24-70 and a 70-200 should cover virtually almost all the zoom range you might ever need for most photography.. for most people.. under.. most lighting conditions

 

[henavs]

Definitely 17-55IS for me...
My current 18-50EX is the most used lens.

Owned 24-70L b4, IMHO too heavy & bulky for me.
also currently 1.6x DSLR fits my needs :thumbsup:

 

[syke]

With digital photography, I find L or no L makes little diff to the pic quality. U have photoshop also remember? On screen, u can't tell the diff without heavy cropping... Even compact digicams are improving so much lately. And unless perhaps u print beyond A3, it's also difficult to tell which is which. I feel digital prints is not there yet to magnify the strengths of lenses.

And for pete's sake, whoever views their images cropped to 100%?!! Neither do u take pics of lines per mm charts on normal days so throw out the MTF graphs please! Good to know but useless to base upon them to decide whether to buy a certain lens or not.

Same with cars. With so many traffic lights & road hoggers here, it shouldn't matter how impressive your car looks on paper. However on the contrary, people still do.

I guess most people here are gear heads / "image seekers" oops my bad. Even if its marginal advantage, it doesn't matter. It prides them as well as comforts them to know that they're carrying the best. Specs for some, matters.

And this is what makes forums interesting & intriguing. All these technical details, charts, 100% crop samples, comments, reviews, comparisons, accusations, flame wars & banai talk (???what's that???) blah blah... They add colour. They make our hobbies interesting. They make us want to buy more. And they put more green stuff into the eyes of people who will never be able to afford them.

It's perfect.:bsmilie: I'm not complaining.;p

Out of topic. Did anyone see this thread posted on FM. This bloke is one sick gear noob. :bigeyes:

 

[judeseah]

believe when u say 1.3x u r refering to 1dmkii,
if yes then its 1.25x,
so the 24-70 would equal 30-91.
every mm counts i guess in wide.

jude

Both are f2.8's. The 17-55 achieves what people have wanted on the 28-80 f2.8 WITH the IS!!!

The 17-55 being EF-S could not be assigned an 'L' status. The kind of special elements and coatings certainly qualify and 'L'. of course, the 24-70 is full frame and is wider on a full frame. On a 1.3x, the 24-70 is 31.2mm-91mm and is not as wide as the 17-55 on a 1.6x crop (27.2mm-88mm).

What do you interpret from the MTF's of the 2 lenses?

24-70
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=8503

17-55
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=12955

 

[maritimus831]

quite useless to have IS on such a short lens IMO. referring to the 17-55. IS only stops blur caused by the photographer, thus, it is useful when movement is more frequent such as when using telephoto lenses.

In extreme low light, IS would allow you to use a 3-stop slower shutter speed to let in more light, but at that setting, usually the subject movement itself would cause the blurring...

 

[santoarmand]

Quite agree. My personal limit when shooting flashless under low light condition is 1/30s with 75mm (both elbow on table). Not because of my handshake, but rather it is the subject that moves or wobbles (still not sure because they breathes or not ).

With 16mm (effectively 25.6mm), I've managed to get 1/20s without handshake. But most of my photo became useless since what I got are unsharp people.

quite useless to have IS on such a short lens IMO. referring to the 17-55. IS only stops blur caused by the photographer, thus, it is useful when movement is more frequent such as when using telephoto lenses.

In extreme low light, IS would allow you to use a 3-stop slower shutter speed to let in more light, but at that setting, usually the subject movement itself would cause the blurring...

 

[GOMUS]

with the trend of the 5D.. perhaps in another few years time.. we'll be seeing affordable entry level full frame digital SLRs...

I dont think it will be happened in few years time, or they will kill all EFS lens. I dont think CANON will have such move. I have a feeling that EFS will last, and getting popular. Look at the amount of 300D, 350D, 20D + 30D in the market. CANON will have such big market to develop into better EFS. Hope they will name some of the EFS with 'L'.

my 2cent opinion only.

 

[David]

Same with cars. With so many traffic lights & road hoggers here, it shouldn't matter how impressive your car looks on paper. However on the contrary, people still do.

I guess most people here are gear heads / "image seekers" oops my bad. Even if its marginal advantage, it doesn't matter. It prides them as well as comforts them to know that they're carrying the best. Specs for some, matters.

HAha.. Certainly a light hearted discussion!

I'm not against L, they rock, but I think the main objectives have to be right. There are some who buy lenses bcos of wrong reasons...

Somehow with digital and skills in photoshop, I find the diff betn L and non-L narrows further in terms of sharpness at least. Afterall, I find the sharpness even with L lenses on Canon RAW disappointing. (Yes, they want us to have freedom to apply our own sharpening...) After sharpening applied to images taken with L and non-L lenses, I usually can't tell the diff betn the 2!

 

[David]

quite useless to have IS on such a short lens IMO. referring to the 17-55. IS only stops blur caused by the photographer, thus, it is useful when movement is more frequent such as when using telephoto lenses.

In extreme low light, IS would allow you to use a 3-stop slower shutter speed to let in more light, but at that setting, usually the subject movement itself would cause the blurring...

Depends on what u want to shoot. If u shoot action stuffs, and if u assume there is subject movement, of cos IS is not directly helpful, even if u are talking about a 600mm L lens.

Dun forget the 17-55 has a cool constant f/2.8 aperture. That's a first for an EF-S lens. Even some L zooms dun even have the bigger f/2.8 (eg 17-40mm f/4L). The IS is fantastic if u take wide angles. 17mm is equivalent to about 28mm in 35mm frame. With 3 stops help, u can do like 1/8s shutter. That's cool IMHO. And at 55mm (or about 90mm equiv), it definitely helps too.

 

[mpenza]

Depends on what u want to shoot. If u shoot action stuffs, and if u assume there is subject movement, of cos IS is not directly helpful, even if u are talking about a 600mm L lens.

Dun forget the 17-55 has a cool constant f/2.8 aperture. That's a first for an EF-S lens. Even some L zooms dun even have the bigger f/2.8 (eg 17-40mm f/4L). The IS is fantastic if u take wide angles. 17mm is equivalent to about 28mm in 35mm frame. With 3 stops help, u can do like 1/8s shutter. That's cool IMHO. And at 55mm (or about 90mm equiv), it definitely helps too.

True, IS and fast aperture have their own usefulness. I guess one grouse against having IS would be that if the lens comes without it, it'll be more affordable and lighter (e.g. I was hoping the 24-105F4L IS comes without the IS, so that I could afford it ;p).

 

[David]

Yes... And also my humble crystal tells me that Canon won't throw out the EF-S anytime soon. I believe the have projected the path of digital cams in the next 10 or maybe even 15 yrs. Even with the EOS 350D, the price is still considered steep. I would think the time will come when we'll have a DSLR in the league of the old film EOS 500n type. Maybe DSLRs in future will be priced at $500, 15MP, 1.6x flm, still accepts EF-S!! Rockz man then! EF-S will cut the cost of manufacturing larger CMOS sensors for lower range DSLRs.

 

[mpenza]

I'm definitely happy to see more EF-S lenses cos I'll be staying on this "format" for the forseeable future ;p

 

[eAgles]

I'm definitely happy to see more EF-S lenses cos I'll be staying on this "format" for the forseeable future ;p

Hmmm.. I am eyeing at EF-S 10-22 in my arsenal. Definitely a keeper. Hmmm... :think: