EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 vs 24-70 f2.8 L These two lenses are close in price. Any advice?
848890
Ok, great info as usual! I'm not going to be taking many close up "macro" type shots or shots with focused forground objects w/ blurred backgrounds to start off, and I really like the 24-105 f/4 L IS lens, would that be probobly the best "walk around" lens for the XSi then? Also, can a 2.8 lens take landscape / scenic shots where the foreground and background are both in focus? I am confused about that with the f# & lenses.The night railroading shots I posted before are a main priority and I have seen some excellent night / low light posted images under the 24-105 f/4 L IS lens here on Amazon.I have a question on the 50D kit lens quality but I'll try to post that under the 50D discussions. Thanks again for all your input. Ok, great info as usual! I'm not going to be taking many close up "macro" type shots or shots with focused forground objects w/ blurred backgrounds to start off, and I really like the 24-105 f/4 L IS lens, would that be probobly the best "walk around" lens for the XSi then? Also, can a 2.8 lens take landscape / scenic shots where the foreground and background are both in focus? I am confused about that with the f# & lenses.The night railroading shots I posted before are a main priority and I have seen some excellent night / low light... » Read More Ok, great info as usual! I'm not going to be taking many close up "macro" type shots or shots with focused forground objects w/ blurred backgrounds to start off, and I really like the 24-105 f/4 L IS lens, would that be probobly the best "walk around" lens for the XSi then? Also, can a 2.8 lens take landscape / scenic shots where the foreground and background are both in focus? I am confused about that with the f# & lenses.The night railroading shots I posted before are a main priority and I have seen some excellent night / low light posted images under the 24-105 f/4 L IS lens here on Amazon.I have a question on the 50D kit lens quality but I'll try to post that under the 50D discussions. Thanks again for all your input. « Show Less
848891
Sure thing (I was somehwat surprised to see this thread started from 2008 again). The 17-55 is a real treat in low light, I think you'll love it!
848892
Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and the 15-85 excels for travel. Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and... » Read More Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and the 15-85 excels for travel. « Show Less
848893
Can you tell me where I can find the do it yourself instructions for for internal cleaning on this lense?Thanks
848894
The 24-70 is generally $300-400 more than the 17-55. There is no IS in the 24-70, and it weighs 2.1 lbs almost a pound more than the 17-55. Construction build is way better w/ the 24-70 and has a wee bit longer zoom. Those are probably the only advantages it has over the 17-55. IQ look almost identical from both lenses. I would go with 17-55 mainly for the IS and lower price.
848895
If you have a crop camera and don't plan on upgrading to full-frame anytime soon, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is very nearly perfect. Its L sharp, very fast and includes optical image stabilization. I shoot in VERY low light and this lens finally made it possible without a tripod.
848896
Yes, certainly -- an f/2.8 len can be stopped down so that the background and foreground are both in sharp focus. An additional advantage of an f/2.8 lens over an f/4 is that the f/2.8 supplies more ligth to the auto-focus system so will be able to auto-focus better in lower light.When you're looking at images made with the 24-105 f/4 L IS, make sure to note the camera being used. The lens will act somewhat differently on a 40D/50D/crop camera which uses a smaller APS-C sized sensor than on a full-frame camera like the 5D, 1D or a film camera. The lens will appear more like a normal to telephoto on a crop camera while being a fairly wide angle to telephoto standard lens on full-frames. Yes, certainly -- an f/2.8 len can be stopped down so that the background and foreground are both in sharp focus. An additional advantage of an f/2.8 lens over an f/4 is that the f/2.8 supplies more ligth to the auto-focus system so will be able to auto-focus better in lower light.When you're looking at images made with the 24-105 f/4 L IS, make sure to note the camera being used. The lens will act somewhat differently on a 40D/50D/crop camera which uses a smaller APS-C sized sensor than on a full-frame camera like the 5D, 1D or a film camera. The lens will appear more like a... » Read More Yes, certainly -- an f/2.8 len can be stopped down so that the background and foreground are both in sharp focus. An additional advantage of an f/2.8 lens over an f/4 is that the f/2.8 supplies more ligth to the auto-focus system so will be able to auto-focus better in lower light.When you're looking at images made with the 24-105 f/4 L IS, make sure to note the camera being used. The lens will act somewhat differently on a 40D/50D/crop camera which uses a smaller APS-C sized sensor than on a full-frame camera like the 5D, 1D or a film camera. The lens will appear more like a normal to telephoto on a crop camera while being a fairly wide angle to telephoto standard lens on full-frames. « Show Less
77908
Amazon.com right now has the XSi + EF-S 18-55mm IS kit lens for $640. Assuming the memory card is worth $10, then you are essentialy paying $150 for the EF 75-300mm lens. Of couse, paying sales tax at Costco will make the difference bigger. [update: I just checked: you can get the same lens for around $140 from Amazon] I once have the EF 75-300mm lens, but later upgraded to the EF 70-300mm USM IS lens. The image stabilization function is a big help if you need to shoot telephoto without a tripod. You may consider buying the EF-S 55-250mm IS lens ($270) instead, to complement the kit lens.
1163546
I have both lenses and while at first glance you may not notice the difference too much, if you spend some time comparing side by side and zooming in you'll notice the 50mm gives all round better results in crispness, colour and clarity.The 18-55mm is a decent lens for a kit lens and I still make use of it but I do side more with the 50mm when the situation calls for it, like street photography.
448719
i dont have the 24 85mm to truly give you a comparison. but according to a few reviews and test i saw the 24 85mm has a slightly better sharpness wile the 24 to 120 has more focal length. so it depends on what you are going to be shooting and what you want to pay for your lens.and fyi if you go for a 24 to 120mm i dont reccomend this version of it as its one of nikons worst modern lenses . get the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR its the revised version and supost to be a better lens. or if you really want focal length the 28mm to 300mm hope this helps
14699
The EF-S 18-55 mm IS lens and the 55-250mm IS lens are made by Canon, not the case for the Telephoto and wide-angle lenses.
358175
Generally, it is a personal style/preference depending on the desired effect. If you're looking to up your game with the subject matter you've mentioned, I wouldn't buy a 24. If you're shooting with an aps sized sensor you're gonna have a multiplier effect on your lens making you 50 even better a lens. I would, in your situation, investigate a fast (2.8) zoom lens in the "standard" range (28-80). I love canon's 17-55 2.8is. This awesome if you have an aps size sensor. Good luck!
773131
I would say get the 18-55 and use the $150 difference toward a 55-250 while you are starting out. You will probably want something longer than 135mm regardless, and depending on how far you go with your photography, there may come a point where none of the three lenses mentioned in this post is "good enough" anymore. ;)
1011661
Hi thomyi, you may try checking on the link below for the direct comparison between the two lenses. -Elyhttp://store.sony.com/gsi/webstore/WFS/SNYNA-SNYUS-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewProductCompareService-Show?CategoryID=on0KmUBxnZQAAAFEYhlScEcW
1107630
Hi Joe, David is right, The EF-s lenses can be made cheaper, the reasoning is they don't have to worry about the quality covering a Fixed Focal sensor.
554416
I don't know if it was a mistake or not, but the two lenses I received were both STM lenses: EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS STM and EF-S 55-250mm 1:4-5.6 IS STM.
608746
I have both of these and they are excellent lenses. This is my profession and it I were to choose go with the 17-70, unless you don't need the extra reach and you mostly work in low light.
910057
Go for it. This is an awesome lens. I use this lens along with my EF 70-200 L Series f/2.8 for all my wedding and other event shoots (including portraits, sports etc). But if money is not an object why not get the 50MM lens (along with this) as others have suggested. I am happy with the two lenses (ie EF 24-70 mm and EF 70-200 mm). I've taken thousands of pictures with these two lenses (almost 80% with the 24-70 Lens). Hope this helps.
523653
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM...bar none the best workaround lens for cropped sensor camera. It's EF-S, but you shouldn't have any problem selling it when you upgrade to Full Frame.
1270620
I own all three of those lenses, and personally I prefer the 18-140 for my D7100 as my walk-around lens for DX. I have not used either the 18-55 or 55-200 since purchasing the 18-140mm. When I need more reach than the 18-140mm can provide I use the 70-300mm which has very fast focusing on a DX body.
523659
The 24-105mm isn't very wide for a walk-around lens. I'm more inclined to recommend the 15-85mm IS USM for its very nice optics, extra wide angle view and overall versatility.The EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 is an excellent zoom that is particularly useful in low light. It doesn't offer the range of the 24-105 or 15-85 but you won't find a better standard zoom for a Canon crop camera.
357722
I own both...in terms of image quality, there's no comparison - the 24-70 is in another league. It's a full stop faster (brighter viewfinder, better depth of field control, faster focusing, etc) and it gives you that "pop" you get from the best professional grade lenses. On the down-side, the 24-70 is a much narrower zoom range, so you might find yourself needing to carry two lenses whereas just the 24-120 would cover you otherwise. It's a personal thing I guess, but if I could only have one or the other, I'd take the 24-70 without a moment's thought.
465323
The 10-22 on you 70D is going to closely match the 17-40 range after adjusting for crop. It really is a personal choice. I stayed away from EF-S lenses because I knew I would eventually get a full frame camera, but if you really need the ultra wide of 16mm the the 10-23 is the only thing to get you there.