Which would you mount on your 7D? (17-55f2.8) or (24-70L f2.8)

[Turbonetics]

So would you say the images tend to be blur or shaky due to say the weight of the lense and camera, or the fact that theres no IS? Especially under low lighting conditions at f2.8.

Cause if theres a high tendency for shaky pictures then im definitely going for the 17-55.

what is your main concern for a walkabout lens?
IS,focal length,weather sealed?
personally still ok for me to use without IS up to 70mm on a crop body.
but it does not mean with IS u wont get blur images.
u should know what lens is more suitable for your needs like do u use 17-23mm more often?
or would u prefer to have the extra 56-70mm when nature calls?
and u mentioned u have the 11-16mm,so between 17-23mm is just a few steps away,that's why i suggest u get the 24-70mm.
so u had another 2 more prime lenses without IS,do u often get blur images with them?though both the aperture are wider,but u can still use them as a rough guide.
nobody can help u make decisions,u should know what u need.

i was in caught in the same situation as u and i got the 24-70mm which suits me more.

 

[Turbonetics]

*deleted

 

[Turbonetics]

*Deleted

 

[Jackle]

I would suggest getting the 17-55 IS. I 'upgraded' from a 24-70 to the 17-55 about 6 months ago.
Reasons being the 24-70 has no IS, is heavier and I find that 24mm can be too tight at times.

What I love about the 24-70 is that the hood does not extend when I zoom in or out, and the reverse zooming (shortest when zoomed-in and longest when zoomed-out)

 

[Turbonetics]

*Deleted

 

[Turbonetics]

*deleted

 

[tecnica]

17-55 luh.

i paired it with the equally superior 10-22.

 

[taylor414]

I would suggest getting the 17-55 IS. I 'upgraded' from a 24-70 to the 17-55 about 6 months ago.
Reasons being the 24-70 has no IS, is heavier and I find that 24mm can be too tight at times.

What I love about the 24-70 is that the hood does not extend when I zoom in or out, and the reverse zooming (shortest when zoomed-in and longest when zoomed-out)

So you used the 24-70 on a 7D body isit? Did your pictures tend to turn out shaky or blur alot due to the lack of IS and the weight issue? because thats my main concern with getting the lense.

2nd, how much were u able to sell your 24-70 for?

 

[taylor414]

what is your main concern for a walkabout lens?
IS,focal length,weather sealed?
personally still ok for me to use without IS up to 70mm on a crop body.
but it does not mean with IS u wont get blur images.
u should know what lens is more suitable for your needs like do u use 17-23mm more often?
or would u prefer to have the extra 56-70mm when nature calls?
and u mentioned u have the 11-16mm,so between 17-23mm is just a few steps away,that's why i suggest u get the 24-70mm.
so u had another 2 more prime lenses without IS,do u often get blur images with them?though both the aperture are wider,but u can still use them as a rough guide.
nobody can help u make decisions,u should know what u need.

i was in caught in the same situation as u and i got the 24-70mm which suits me more.

Personally I guess Im looking to have a range of lenses that will 'cover' as much focal lengths as possible. I totally agree with your logic on the issue that I already have a 11-16, therefore I should get something with a longer range at the end (24-70). I guess I shoot mostly in the 35mm and beyond range for capturing people when im not doing landscape or architectural shots. My greatest concern is the weight and lack of IS resulting in shaky blur pictures. Ill be going for a trip to europe so im looking for the perfect lense to capture the moments there. I do get blur images with my other 2 primes sometimes hence my apprehension with the 24-70 since its a titan of a lense. so thanks for your feedback its been useful.

 

[Turbonetics]

U may want to consider the 24-105mm f4 IS.
The only downside is it's slightly slower.
Other than that,I see it meet your criteria.

 

[AbsolutKev]

R u sure that on crop 17-55 has beta IQ? 17-55 is made for crop n 24-70 is made for FF. If u put 24-70 on a crop body, it ll only utillise the centre part of the glass which is v sharp. I believe 24-70 on a crop will give good iq from center to corner of e frame.

I don't blame you buddy. In fact on the same crop body, 17-55 has a slight IQ advantage over the 24-70.

Just to put it bluntly 17-55f2.8 IS is "THE KING" for crop bodies IQ wise. You can't go wrong with this lens unless you decide to go ALL FF in the next few weeks.

As for me I'm waiting for 5dmIII, and when it comes I'll grab that baby up, and my 60D will still be my reliable backup and almost exclusively with the 17-55 mounted on it .

 

[AbsolutKev]

R u sure that on crop 17-55 has beta IQ? 17-55 is made for crop n 24-70 is made for FF. If u put 24-70 on a crop body, it ll only utillise the centre part of the glass which is v sharp. I believe 24-70 on a crop will give good iq from center to corner of e frame.

I don't blame you buddy. In fact on the same crop body, 17-55 has a slight IQ advantage over the 24-70.

Just to put it bluntly 17-55f2.8 IS is "THE KING" for crop bodies IQ wise. You can't go wrong with this lens unless you decide to go ALL FF in the next few weeks.

As for me I'm waiting for 5dmIII, and when it comes I'll grab that baby up, and my 60D will still be my reliable backup and almost exclusively with the 17-55 mounted on it .

 

[2evans]

When you check out the online reviews, can you see differences in IQ between the two when they are used on APSC?

 

[silverarrow]

Let me put it this way...

You now have the 24-70Lf2.8 available in the market for crop body like the 7D, and you are still considering the EFS 17-55f2.8...meaning that the 17-55 is still worth considering buying know that the 24-70 is already a good performer.

Now on the other extreme...if the 17-55f2.8 IS is made to be able to mount on full frame like 5d or better body, will you still consider the 24-70L non IS and weight a ton ? You probably able to answer your own question by now.

For crop body, 17-55f2.8 is the best combination, i went thru one big circle trying out various L lenses and still came back to 17-55f2.8 IS
In fact this is the 2nd EFS 17-55f2.8 IS... i own in the last 4 yrs of usage.

But if you intend to upgrade to full frame in near future, then its a different thoughts altogether.

 

[Turbonetics]

one man's meat is another man's poison.
if 17-55mm is the best combination on crop body,then all crop user don't need to get other lenses already.
i don't think these 2 lenses are made to compete against each other as their focal length are not the same through out.
the only similarity i can see are both meant for walkabout.

 

[Jackle]

So you used the 24-70 on a 7D body isit? Did your pictures tend to turn out shaky or blur alot due to the lack of IS and the weight issue? because thats my main concern with getting the lense.

2nd, how much were u able to sell your 24-70 for?

I did get some blur pictures on the 24-70 especially those taken in low light. This is mostly due to the lack of IS not so much due to the weight.

I guess I sold my 24-70 at around 1650, same price I paid for it. You could take the risk of getting a copy from B & S, try it for a month or so, then sell it at the same price or maybe 50 bucks lesser. and take it that the 50 bucks was used for rental.

 

[hellfire241]

hi there.. i faced the same dilemma not too long ago.. i'm also using a 7d.. personally i feel that walking around with a 7d together with my 10-22 and 24-70 is a pretty good fit.. one gives a good wide angle and the other a decent telephoto range for a walkabout lens.. however, do take note that with the 24-70 on you will probably need a BG-e7 like i have to counter the weight or the lens will be tilted downwards.. most of the time..

i also have the 17-55 but use it only indoors cos of he f2.8 and 24-70 is just not wide enough for indoor photography..

since your concern is about walkabout lens i'd definitely recommend the 24-70.. well.. that's my take on it..

 

[engrmariano]

definitely 17-55 2.8 IS

 

[egnaro]

I am using 11-16 & 24-70 on my 7D so far it works perfectly!

 

[taylor414]

I did get some blur pictures on the 24-70 especially those taken in low light. This is mostly due to the lack of IS not so much due to the weight.

I guess I sold my 24-70 at around 1650, same price I paid for it. You could take the risk of getting a copy from B & S, try it for a month or so, then sell it at the same price or maybe 50 bucks lesser. and take it that the 50 bucks was used for rental.

But i guess its natural to tend to get shaky pictures under low light right, the IS isnt exactly a 100% cure to low light situations.
You got your lense at 1650sing?? where did u get it at that price man.