I have neither, but I think I would go for the 17-55 for a couple of reasons:
-Wider short end. This could be handy in small event locations.
-It is stabilized.
I think those benefits outweigh the sharper L glass.
I have neither, but I think I would go for the 17-55 for a couple of reasons:
-Wider short end. This could be handy in small event locations.
-It is stabilized.
I think those benefits outweigh the sharper L glass.
Good point on the wider short end. I heard the 17-55 is just as sharp as the L lenses. Can I get some confirmation on that from someone?
If you trust photozone.de reviews, 17-55 has better optical quality than the 24-70 one, even though it's not an 'L' lens. Also, as Steve mentioned, you will get a wider angle at the lower end to play with.
Much more chromatic aberration, higher distortion, and lower contrast...
Buy the L lens and go get a Canon 10-22 for those wide needs.. Or I do like my Sigma 12-24 EX DG, but, it's not sharp until you get to f/8, and the 10-22 is better, so unless you can find a steal on a Sigma, get the 10-22 if you need wide..
The IS would be very, very nice, but I'm not giving up sharpness and contrast, and gaining CA for that.. Nope. :)
ETA: I've owned neither lens... But I'd be wary about the 17-55 as I have seen excessive CA in at least some one of the photos taken with it.. Can't seem to find it anyway now....
I did however, just look at these pictures.. I don't know, this should show the CA if it's there, and I don't see it.. Anyone think that might be because it was taken with an 8MP 350D? That's a very different camera than the 7D.. After looking at the newer reviews, this looks intriguing..
I still don't know about the results shown on the ISO charts above though, that does make the lens look a bit too soft. I might have to find one of these to try before I buy, but it would be a very cool length to have with IS..
Keep in mind, the EF 24-70 will have a focal length factor. So on the 7D, it would be more of a 38-112mm.
I've never found clarification on this, and I don't own any EF-S lenses. But your comment leads me to think that maybe EF-S lenses are stated in equivalent lengths?
Essentially is a EF lens @ 28mm the same FOV as a EF-S lens @ 28mm?
i am also in the same boat as you kgeary. i have been weighing pros and cons on those two lenses for a WHILE. since i already am a proud owner of the 10-22 my opinion may be skewed. i am currently waiting to buy the 24-70L. although it is a big longer, i enjoy portraits the most and the wide end of the 17-55 wouldnt be used as much (since i can swap for the 10-22 if i want wide). also the two main problems i consistently hear about the 17-55 are dust and CA. i have heard that the 17-55 has a tendency to get dust VERY easily. this doesnt bode well for me. on the other hand i have never heard a complaint about the 24-70. also if i ever decide to get a 5D which is a real possibility once i can afford it, the 24-70 would be usable while the 17-55 wouldnt.
Really it boils down to what sort of shooting you intend to do. Granted, I'm a Nikon user, but I recently picked up the 28-70 and find it to be an incredible lens. I foresee myself using for a huge portion of my shots and my general walk-around lens. One thing I'm sad about, is that I really love my wide angle though. I like getting up close and personal, and the power and dynamism that is created by that intimate relationship. But this isn't always good for, say, street photography, or weddings, where you want to take great photos from unobtrusive positions. Evaluate your needs. How much experience do you have with shooting at 17 vs 28? Do you find yourself consistently at the short end?
i've never done bird photography but seeing as all of the tele primes are extremely expensive i would say either the 70-200 f/4 for the 200mm 2.8 L. the first can be had used for around 500 and the second used for i believe around 550-600.
I plan on getting the 10-22mm Canon lens, which would pretty much take care of that low end. Plus with the 24-70 I could add a 70-200 and be pretty well covered. The only problem is the lack of IS on the 24-70 and having to switch lenses if I want to suddenly go wide.
And the 17-55 is nearly $300 cheaper. That $300 could go to towards the 10-22.
If I got the 17-55, is the 55-70 range covered by any primes I could get...would it be a big deal to not have a lens that hits that range? THIS IS TOUGH.
I plan on getting the 10-22mm Canon lens, which would pretty much take care of that low end. Plus with the 24-70 I could add a 70-200 and be pretty well covered. The only problem is the lack of IS on the 24-70 and having to switch lenses if I want to suddenly go wide.
And the 17-55 is nearly $300 cheaper. That $300 could go to towards the 10-22.
If I got the 17-55, is the 55-70 range covered by any primes I could get...would it be a big deal to not have a lens that hits that range? THIS IS TOUGH.
Whether you'll miss that range or not depends on what you're shooting. If you're using a longer lens and there's room to back up or a shorter lens and there's room/subject allows you to move forward then it's not a problem.
If you have a tool to analyze the focal length of all the shots you've already taken you can determine how often you have shot in that range in the past.
If I got the 17-55, is the 55-70 range covered by any primes I could get...would it be a big deal to not have a lens that hits that range? THIS IS TOUGH.
Canon 60mm f/2.8 EF-S Macro will fill the bill :-)
If I got the 17-55, is the 55-70 range covered by any primes I could get...would it be a big deal to not have a lens that hits that range? THIS IS TOUGH.
Canon 60mm f/2.8 EF-S Macro will fill the bill :-)
R.
Not a bad price either! Did you have an opinion on which lens to get (24-70 vs 17-55?)
