EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 vs 24-70 f2.8 L: Any advice?
1191177
No, I'm not aware of any updates to the seals on the 17-55. Yes, an f2.8 lens needs only half as much light as an f4. That means you can use a 2 times faster shutter speed or a stop slower, less noisy, ISO. Plus the f2.8 will give you more background blurring which is very nice for portraits where you want to isolate the subject from the background. I did a quick review of lens dust threads on the PhotographyOnTheNet Canon forums and found dust threads for pretty much every Canon lens that extends when zoomed as well as a few other third-party lenses that aren't considered inexpensive. Interestingly, none of these threads actually mentioned finding a degradation in image quality which lead to the discovery of internal dust but, rather, were started by someone who inevitably looked through the lens with a flashlight, saw some dust and grew concerned. I'm of the philosophy that if it ain't broke, don't go looking for problems. ;) (When I last bought my brand new car, I made a very conscious - though difficult - effort not to look for scratches in the paint after every trip to the grocery store.) The general consensus is that SOME amount of dust in the lens will not affect image quality whatsoever. Many owners of the 17-55 also report that installing a front UV filter has kept their lens pristine (I've also kept my UV filter on at all times except when using a CPL filter so perhaps that isn't an unreasonable conclusion). Apparently there are three small hidden vents on the front of the lens a filter will seal. Furthermore, one of the long time members of the forum has published do-it-yourself instructions for internally cleaning the lens and others point out that Canon will give you a free (minus postage) cleaning and adjustment while the lens is still in warranty. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it really isn't something worth worrying too much about under typical conditions.
1254979
N8TE - Thanks for the advice. I will look into the AF-S (especially the 70-300 VR) but it's good to know my old lens is still an option.
96399
I have both this 15-85mm lens, and the wonderful EF-S 10-22mm. Since getting the 15-85, I almost never use the 10-22, even though most of my photography is on the wide-angle side of normal. I recommend both lenses, but get the 15-85 first, and you may find, as I did, that it is very adequate all by itself. If you do need extreme wide-angle, however, by all means get the EF-S 10-22mm, which is excellent. Best, get both!
624550
I have the 2.8L lens, and I love it, but I wish it had IS. In my opinion, the only real advantage of the 2.8 is its greater light gathering power, to shoot inside or in deep shadows. The f4 with the IS can do most everything you want, especially if you have a camera with a high ISO. I don't know of any differences in the glass.
1283905
yes, it will.The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 lens has a 77mm filter thread. If you look at the front of your lens (the glass) around it you should see information about the lens printed. The part with the O with a line through it followed by 77mm indicates the filter size that the lens uses.
405
Thanks everyone for your help. You've explained a lot and it really helps. After your explanations, I looked at my past photos. I'm thinking that maybe the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 will fill my needs. Thanks again.
1370484
sorry, don't know anything about an EF-S 18-55 mm.... but from my limited experience with my Nikon and Olympus lenses, the critical thing is the size of the lens...58mm vs 62mm vs 72mm....My Canon 500d works on every 58mm and smaller diameter lenses as long as i have an appropriate step-up ring... good luck...If unsure, try it... Amazon has been very good at returns if there was a problem
357725
To my understanding it is usually believed that 2470 is a better version than this one in the same focal length range. But there are other things to consider. How important is it for you to have the extra versatility, that is, the focal length of 70 to 120? How much do you care about the lost of aperture range? (And that depends on what you plan to shoot most often.) How important is the price difference to you? And weight differs, too. Actually, I envy the newest 750 model so much! lol. It certainly deserves good lenses.
14700
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. Still a great deal in my opinion. My wife and I love it.
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.
1345652
The 24-70 f2.8 is a better lens for sure, and much more expensive. But this lens is VERY good, and will do a fine job for weddings.
2240581
Thank you Very much for your Help, what do you think about the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II and the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM? If you had the money for only one general purpose lens, wich one will you chose?
357723
I spent many months comparing 28-300 and this 24-120 before I settle with this. I was looking for a walk around lenses for travel and family picture because I don't want my f2.8 lenses to take all the fun out of the trip as they are heavy and big. To my surprise, this 24-120 replaced my 24-70 f2.8 except for shooting sports as the AF is not as snappy as the 24-70 f2.8 and I need to shoot more frames to cherry pick the ones that are in focus. Other than sports, my copy of 24-120 f4 has taken over the job of 24-70 f2.8. I used it at weddings and senior pictures...... I am very happy with it. I got it in "brand new white box" for about half the price and that's even a greater deal. I spent many months comparing 28-300 and this 24-120 before I settle with this. I was looking for a walk around lenses for travel and family picture because I don't want my f2.8 lenses to take all the fun out of the trip as they are heavy and big. To my surprise, this 24-120 replaced my 24-70 f2.8 except for shooting sports as the AF is not as snappy as the 24-70 f2.8 and I need to shoot more frames to cherry pick the ones that are in focus. Other than sports, my copy of 24-120 f4 has taken over the job of 24-70 f2.8. I used it at weddings and senior pictures...... I am very happy with it.... » Read More I spent many months comparing 28-300 and this 24-120 before I settle with this. I was looking for a walk around lenses for travel and family picture because I don't want my f2.8 lenses to take all the fun out of the trip as they are heavy and big. To my surprise, this 24-120 replaced my 24-70 f2.8 except for shooting sports as the AF is not as snappy as the 24-70 f2.8 and I need to shoot more frames to cherry pick the ones that are in focus. Other than sports, my copy of 24-120 f4 has taken over the job of 24-70 f2.8. I used it at weddings and senior pictures...... I am very happy with it. I got it in "brand new white box" for about half the price and that's even a greater deal. « Show Less
1324618
Yeah, I'd say their elements are in the same class. Both use ultra-low dispersion glass and produce superb images. I think the main difference is that the 17-55 has to use larger elements. Which increases the relative aperture and the price tag.
575775
If you can afford it I would definitely keep both. First, the 85 1.8 gives you the wide aperture that you do not get with the 70-200 f/4. It is also much more compact and allows you to be less noticeable when shooting. The size and color of the 70-200 make stealth next to impossible. If you are indoors in low light you will definitely be reaching for the 85 1.8.
2004640
Which one did you finish up with? I'm interested because you said that you shoot mainly lanscapes, so why would you part with the 17-40mm? If your option had been for the 16-35mm f2.8L, I could have understood the reason, but a 24mm lens on any new camera (assuming it's not a film body, 5D or 1Ds) is only going to give you 31mm (1D) or 38mm (the rest). Not much good for landscape work.BTW, the 24-70mm eats the 24-105mm alive when it comes to contrast and sharpness, IS or not!
1927593
These lenses are roughly of the same quality, yes (assuming you're comparing the STM versions). The 55-250mm gives you longer reach while the 18-135mm gives you the convenience of not having to switch lenses as often.