Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?message=28575473&changemo...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
Advice needed between Canon 17-55 IS f2.8 and Canon 24-70mm IS 2.8 [Page 1]: Canon EOS 40D - 10D Forum: Digital Photography Review
Currently I have a 40D with the kit lens 17-85 and have been taking quite a few photos and learning how to handle and use my new Camera (first DSLR).
Now, I would like to get a better walk about lens and am in a dilemma as to whether to go for Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 or the Canon EF 24-70 f2.8 lens.
I also plan to get a wide angle and telephoto Zoom.
Any advice would be welcome keeping in mind that I am planning a trip to Kenya in December and will be visiting a few Game parks.
Please advice on the required lenses for Landscapes, Wildlife, nature and portrait photography.
|
|
Hi.
From your post i see lots of different situations and no one (or even two) lens's will cover all of them.
For a walk around i suggest the 17-55IS.
It will also do landscapes but is not really long enough for animals out in the wild.
But neither is the 24-70 f/2.8.
As you say you will get other lens's for these situation thats not a issue really.
Personally i find having IS makes the 17-55IS a lot more useful but others will say the 24-70 is better.
--
Dave.
Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
|
|
|
I think the 24-70 L is not stabilized.
Regards
|
|
Quote: :
> I think the 24-70 L is not stabilized.
>
>
Regards
I Think its just a typo in the thread title.
--
Dave.
Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
|
|
I just bought the 17-55, and the image quality blows me away.
There is no better lens on the market for natural/low light photography.
If that's a great interest for you, there's no other choice (if you can handle the price).
Another lens you might consider is the 24-105 f/4L IS.
It gets very good reviews and is in the same price range as the 17-55.
I thought about this one, but I wanted the added speed of the 17-55, but that 105 reach really tempted me.
Another consideration is with the crop factor of the 40D, a 24-70 (or 24-105) isn't that wide.
Here's a sample of my 17-55 shot with natural light.
It's a 100% crop (from a full head photo) with no post-processing, 400 iso, 1/60, f/2.8.
When run through Photoshop, it has that 3D quality some mention.
Image control: Zoom out | Zoom 100% | Zoom in | Expand / Contract | New window
|
|
Quote: :
>
>
Quote: :
> >
I think the 24-70 L is not stabilized
>
>
I Think its just a typo in the thread title.
Sorry, that was a mistake.
The 24-70 is not IS.
|
|
Dan Quote: :
>
I just bought the 17-55, and the image quality blows me away
Well, that shot is quite sharp and clear!
I am impressed! I think, I would go for the faster one too!
Looks like 17-55 is the way to go.
Appreciate everyone's advice here.
Simba
|
|
I was in the same boat as you, and went with the 17-55mm f/2.8.
Very pleased with this lens.
It's a great (albeit heavy) walk-around lens.
But it's also currently the only lens I own, and I'm already wishing I had some additional ammo to work with (macro lens, 70-200 f/4 etc.).
But there's that pesky cost factor...
|
|
Quote: :
> I was in the same boat as you, and went with the 17-55mm f/2.8.
Very
> pleased with this lens.
It's a great (albeit heavy) walk-around
>
Lens. But it's also currently the only lens I own, and I'm already
>
Wishing I had some additional ammo to work with (macro lens, 70-200
>
F/4 etc.). But there's that pesky cost factor...
Yes, cost is always the deciding factor!
I will go with the 17-55 and then closer to my trip, will get the 70-200 f2.8 IS for the wildlife shots in Kenya.
|
|
Quote: :
>
>
Quote: :
> >
I was in the same boat as you, and went with the 17-55mm f/2.8.
Very
> > pleased with this lens.
It's a great (albeit heavy) walk-around
>
> lens. But it's also currently the only lens I own, and I'm already
>
> wishing I had some additional ammo to work with (macro lens, 70-200
>
> f/4 etc.). But there's that pesky cost factor...
>
>
>
Yes, cost is always the deciding factor!
>
>
I will go with the 17-55 and then closer to my trip, will get the
>
70-200 f2.8 IS for the wildlife shots in Kenya.
>
Good choice.
Dont forget to get a hood as the 17-55IS does seem to need it more than some lens's.
--
Dave.
Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
|
|
My conclusions:
17-55 slightly sharper in the middle and significantly sharper around the edges.
24-70 a little warmer in color
24-70 has slightly more bokeh (I assume because it is further away from the sensor)
17-55 IS comes in very handy.
24-70 has better build, but do you really need it?
17mm is SIGNIFICANTLY wider than 24mm.
55mm is NOT significantly shorter than 70mm.
Take 2 steps forward and you're there.
I sold the 24-70.
my test (with images) is here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=24187000
|
|
To 'Simba 52' - I too am quite new to the 40D & the lens choice dilemma.
If you go to my profile you will see that I'm a fellow Aussie & will see where I got my last lens at a good price.
I have found the 17-55 lens, although expensive, a very good general purpose lens.
I have experienced some inconsistencies in getting sharp focus in portraits.
I have just posted for help on this.
'Dan P1' - your response to Simba had a close up of an eye.
I need to post mine.
Whats the procedure on cropping, size & attaching to the post.
Thanks for your help Guys - I have really found it very encouraging.
--
Anton [the West Aussie]
|
|
Quote: :
> Good choice.
Dont forget to get a hood as the 17-55IS does seem to
>
Need it more than some lens's.
Yea I found one on eBay for $5 U.S.
Designed specifically for the 17-55mm , and fits perfectly- and is A LOT cheaper than Canon's.
|
|
I had use of a 17-55 IS for a few days, and it was the best lens for image quality that I've ever used.
It is definitely sharper and more aberration-free than my 24-105 L IS.
And yes, 24mm is not wide enough for a crop camera.
If you go with the 24-70, you'll soon long for a 10-22, too.
Before you buy though, I'd caution you to look into the numerous reports of dust accumulating inside the 17-55.
These were abundant about 6 months to a year ago.
At the time Canon USA was not fixing them as a warranty item, saying the dust did not affect image quality.
It's the reason I went with the 24-105 L.
Hopefully Canon has since solved the problem.
--
JerryG
See my galleries at:
http://www.pbase.com/jerryg1
|
|
|
If you're not planning to upgrade to a full frame camera in the near future, then the 17-55 2.8 IS is the clear choice.
|
|
Definitely 17-55/2.8 IS is better.
It is sort of the 24-70mm/2.8 lens for APS-C cameras like 40D.
The 17-55/2.8IS has great image quality, fast, IS that helps in low light.
The downside is built quality is lower but not bad and it needs the hood.
I use it all the time and use 70-200/2.8L IS as its partner.
--
What camera do I have?
I rather you look at my photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/gavinz
|
|
I am one of those that thinks the 17-85 is a very useful lens.
Its issues are addressed easily with the newest DPP version.
On safari in Tanzania I used that and a 100-400 on a 20D and a 30D.
Worked out great.
To the extent you have budget constraints think about keeping it for now and getting a 2nd dslr and a 100-400 for Africa.
You will want longer than 200 for wildlife.
--
http://mitchseaver.zenfolio.com/
|
|
I'd really miss the range between 17 and 24mm.
It doesn't sound like much, but it's a 1.4X difference!
And since they've got the same max aperture, you gain nothing there with the 24-70.
And finally, you lose the IS if you go with the 24-70.
As with a lot of these "L" lenses, they were designed for full-frame use, and don't necessarily translate that well to 1.6X use.
24mm is a wonderful wide end for a full frame body.
On a 1.6X body, it's very "ho-hum".
I tend to really use the wide end of things.
So that's where I'd feel cheated with the 24-70.
It's also been reported by a number of people that the 24-70 just isn't as sharp as the 17-55.
So what do you get with the 24-70?
Better build quality.
What do you get with the 17-55?
Image stabilization, arguably better optics, better wide end.
For me, the 17-55 wins.
--
Jim H.
|
|
Good for you. You won't be sorry.
The 17-55 is the only lens in that range that has it all for a cropped camera.
Love mine.
--
One day I'll learn how to post photos.
I am 61 & technically challenged.
|
|
Just exchanged my trusty 17-85IS for the 17-55/2.8IS and love it!
You will definitely need more than 200 mm, even on a crop body, for shooting wildlife.
I'm very happy with the 70-300 IS.
|
|
|
|