A little input on a Canon lens. This or that?

H

[H]ella|[H]ard

Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2001
Messages
526
I have a XSi and have been really thinking of getting the 7d. Right now I have the kit lens from the XSi and a EF 70-200mm f/2.8.

I've been looking at getting a new lens to replace the kit lens. And here is where the problem lies.
There's the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS that is made for the 1.6 crop cameras and is said to cover the 27-88mm in 35mm / full frame format. Price is around 1k give or take a little. Great reviews all over the web and the only gripe some have is the mount being only for 1.6 bodys. I don't plan on getting a full frame anytime soon so to me it would not matter.

The other lens I'm looking at is the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L. Now if I under stand it right, this lens is like a 38-112 on a crop body. This lens is around $350 more and does have the weather sealing and that nice little red ring on it. I'm not sure if I like losing my wide angle that much starting at 38 but weather sealing sounds nice.

I keep flipping back and forth on the two. I shoot a lot of indoor family and friends and I'm not a big fan of the flash look and they both have the 2.8 but I'm worried that I'm really going to miss being able to go wide when I cant move around the room and the difference from 27-38 can be huge in a small room.

I would love any input from you guys on this.
 
If you shoot a lot of indoor stuff, get the 17-55 IS. It is the better choice over the 24-70 for most on a crop body.

Should be just as sharp, has IS which is huge for indoors a lot of the time, and 24 is not wide enough for most in tighter spaces like indoors. Weather sealing means nothing as your camera is not weather sealed, its not that big of a deal. The main advantage to the 24-70 is the longer end, better build, and full frame compatibility. But it really is made for full frame. I really see no reason for you to go with the 24-70, you shoot indoors, you dont want to go FF, etc.

Personally I rock a 24-105 on my crop body, but I dont shoot indoors much. 24 is plenty wide for me, but when indoors it can be limiting.
 
Personally, I think IS is pretty much useless in this focal length.

My main lens is the 28-70 f2.8. In close quarters on a DX body (1.5 crop), I often find 28mm too long. I also have the 12-24 but it was always too short for general purpose. On the FX body though, it is just right.
 
The weather sealing of the L lens is nice, but your XSi is not-so I don't think that should be a deciding factor. I have heard great things about Canon's 17-55 but when it came time for me to purchase it for my 40D, I ended up going with the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. I don't know if you are strictly Canon, but if not check the Tammy out. New it runs about $450 and the resale value if you should ever want to sell it is around $350-375. It really is a nice lens. I agree with PS-RagE that the IS on the Canon is really useless in this FL. With the money saved, you could always pick up a nice prime for indoor candids as well-maybe the Canon 85 f/1.8 [my #1 fav] or something a little wider [and my #2 fav] Sigma's 30mm f/1.4. All of these will perform great in low light, indoor type situations.
 
Cali, that is a nice looking lens. And less then half the price does look good to the wallet. With money saved I could get the pocket wizards and some flashes ...... hmmmm
 
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L is an excellent lens. I would go with that one and then get a wide-angle if you need it. Personally, I just find the 17-55mm range to not be enough. It also depends on what you shoot with these lenses.

I would also suggest looking at the EF 24-105mm f/4L. While it lets in less light than the 2.8, it is a sharper lens and has more zoom on the long end. It's perfect if you're not always shooting in low light and also has Image Stabilization which is a huge advantage.
 
PS-RagE said:
Personally, I think IS is pretty much useless in this focal length.
Click to expand...

Depends what you shoot, I use it a lot even on the wide end of my 24-105.

[H]ella|[H]ard;1034740119 said:
Cali, that is a nice looking lens. And less then half the price does look good to the wallet. With money saved I could get the pocket wizards and some flashes ...... hmmmm
Click to expand...

The tammy 17-50 is a very good lens. Not as good as the 17-55, but pretty close for the cost difference.

PC_User said:
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L is an excellent lens. I would go with that one and then get a wide-angle if you need it. Personally, I just find the 17-55mm range to not be enough. It also depends on what you shoot with these lenses.

I would also suggest looking at the EF 24-105mm f/4L. While it lets in less light than the 2.8, it is a sharper lens and has more zoom on the long end. It's perfect if you're not always shooting in low light and also has Image Stabilization which is a huge advantage.
Click to expand...

The 24-105 and 24-70 are pretty close in sharpness with a slight edge to the 24-70 it seems. For many the 24 end is not wide enough on a crop body and I would have to agree if someone is going to be doing a lot of indoor work like the OP desires. I get around this with a 10-22, but that is yet another lens and lots of lens swapping if you do lots of indoor work.
 
Grentz said:
The 24-105 and 24-70 are pretty close in sharpness with a slight edge to the 24-70 it seems. For many the 24 end is not wide enough on a crop body and I would have to agree if someone is going to be doing a lot of indoor work like the OP desires. I get around this with a 10-22, but that is yet another lens and lots of lens swapping if you do lots of indoor work.
Click to expand...

Actually, the edge goes to the 24-105. But, if the OP will be shooting indoors, then the 2.8 will come in handy (perhaps even more so than Image Stabilization). True, the 24mm end may not be wide enough, but that's why there are wide-angle lenses such as the Canon 10-22mm or the Sigma 10-20mm. Additionally, on a crop factor body, the 105mm end will be even longer which can prove to be an advantage if someone needs that added zoom.
 
I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and it is a very good lens, image quality is on par with the Canon 17-40 f/4 L lens. My brother and I did a bunch of comparison shots a few months ago when I got the Tamron.
Only cons with the Tamron is a loud focusing motor and it feels kinda cheap when compared to the Canon, but the Canon was twice the price that I paid for my slightly used Tamron ($320 vs $700).
We have Canon 40D's.
 
Get the 17-55IS if you don't plan on going Full-Frame any time soon.
Pros - wider than the 24-70. Has IS.
Cons - Not as great a build as the 24-70.
Optically both are great.

Only opt for the 24-70 if you plan on getting a FF camera.
 
Has anyone mentioned the size of the 24-70L.....? The lens is known as "the brick." Is freaking big and heavy, and adding a bucket size hood. Is a nice lens. Once you hold it in your hand you know you are holding a L lens.
 
Tamron also seems to be coming out with a 17-55IS version. It's "released" but not something easy to find. It's cheaper then the Canon supposidly but it's hard to tell when it's hard to find.
 
PC_User said:
Actually, the edge goes to the 24-105. But, if the OP will be shooting indoors, then the 2.8 will come in handy (perhaps even more so than Image Stabilization). True, the 24mm end may not be wide enough, but that's why there are wide-angle lenses such as the Canon 10-22mm or the Sigma 10-20mm. Additionally, on a crop factor body, the 105mm end will be even longer which can prove to be an advantage if someone needs that added zoom.
Click to expand...

The Digital Picture has so-so results many times. Many over at POTN (the main Canon user forum on the net) have compared the 24-70 and 24-105 over and over...as it is a hard decision and a popular one people have to make...and the edge goes to the 24-70 most of the time. The 24-70 also has better bokeh which is the 24-105's weak point.

They are very close though, and differ in other more important ways (2.8 vs. 4, IS vs. no IS, 70 max vs. 105 max), so it is sorta irrelevant.
 
Grentz said:
The Digital Picture has so-so results many times. Many over at POTN (the main Canon user forum on the net) have compared the 24-70 and 24-105 over and over...as it is a hard decision and a popular one people have to make...and the edge goes to the 24-70 most of the time. The 24-70 also has better bokeh which is the 24-105's weak point.

They are very close though, and differ in other more important ways (2.8 vs. 4, IS vs. no IS, 70 max vs. 105 max), so it is sorta irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The main point is that they are two different lenses that serve different purposes. It's sort of like comparing apples and oranges. I got my 24-105mm because I shot landscape photography and that's where it has the edge. Also, the IS function is quite nice to have. Also, because I use it as my main walk-around lens, 70mm is simply not long enough for me. If shooting in low-light conditions (i.e. indoors) or action photography (speed is of the essence), then the 2.8 is superior. For landscapes and architecture, the 24-105mm is a more practical choice. It all depends on what the lens is being used for...they each have advantages and disadvantages.
 
Get the Tammy 17-50 or Sigma 18-50 2.8. Use your savings for a 35f2 (or similar) and a 50 1.4. If you want to shoot without flash indoors, the primes will be much more useful.
 
Indeed I have. Last night at the local camera store I did some sample shoots with some lenses and I think I'm going to wait on the Tamron 17-50mm/2.8 XR VC Di II LD. Man that's a long name for a lens. It should be out in few weeks in my area. While at the store and tried the Promaster 17-50 2.8 (re-badged Tamron) It back focused about 1/2 in. and the pics at 2.8 looked very soft I took shoots at 2.8 all the way up to 10ish to get a idea and I was not real impressed. I think next time I go down there I will have my laptop with me so I can take shots and look at them on the spot rather then getting home and doing it.

On a good note, I did walk out with the nifty fifty ;) Lot of fun so far!
 
I have the 15-55 2.8 Canon Lense and I have to say it is my best lens. I so envy you for your 70-200. That is the one len that would complete my photo package.

I had a 17-85is for three years (Bought it with my rebel XTI) Used the thing to death and loved it. The only issue I had with it was the slow F-stop of the lens. Now I have the 17-55 and it's a night and day difference. The images are sharper, and I can shoot in lower light than ever before. The only gripe I have at times is the long end is a little short for some outdoors group stuff. Of course a 24mm short end would be too long indoors so I make due. My long outdoors lens is a cheep 75-300mm canon zoom. Not a great lens but 480mm effective reach gives you access to some amazing shots at times.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23659419@N08/4019123999/
I am actually in the process of trying to decide if I want to get a 7D or go with the 70-200 lense. (Thinking I'm going with the lens) The XTi body is getting long in the tooth, 35K actuations so far, but it still takes great pictures. I am always impressed at the difference it makes when you get better glass on the thing.
 
[H]ella|[H]ard;1034772117 said:
Indeed I have. Last night at the local camera store I did some sample shoots with some lenses and I think I'm going to wait on the Tamron 17-50mm/2.8 XR VC Di II LD. Man that's a long name for a lens. It should be out in few weeks in my area. While at the store and tried the Promaster 17-50 2.8 (re-badged Tamron) It back focused about 1/2 in. and the pics at 2.8 looked very soft I took shoots at 2.8 all the way up to 10ish to get a idea and I was not real impressed. I think next time I go down there I will have my laptop with me so I can take shots and look at them on the spot rather then getting home and doing it.

On a good note, I did walk out with the nifty fifty ;) Lot of fun so far!
Click to expand...


That sounds like it will be a very nice lens. Congrats on the Nifty....that lens is definitely fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top