Which lens? Please help. - DPChallenge Forums

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

06/11/2010 02:05:49 PM · #1

Canon 7D.

Going to be my first lens for it.

Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS

OR

Canon EF 24-70 2.8L

Lens will be used for portraits and events, both indoors and out.

Thanks!

Message edited by author 2010-06-11 14:06:36.

Yo_Spiff

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

06/11/2010 02:12:59 PM · #2

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.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

06/11/2010 02:31:49 PM · #3

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

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?

Prash

Nikon D90

06/11/2010 02:41:27 PM · #4

I speak just from reading reviews:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L

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.

Your choice.

ETA: to help compare the values,

Price check for 17-55 lens.
Price check for 24-70 lens.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

06/11/2010 02:45:09 PM · #5

the 17-55 is every bit as sharp as the 24-70

(I've owned the 24-70 and now own the 17-55)

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

06/11/2010 03:11:16 PM · #6

The ISO charts tell a different story, especially at the bottom end of each lens @ f/2.8..

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..

Message edited by author 2010-06-11 15:40:31.

Magnumphotography

Canon EF 500mm f/4.0L IS USM

06/11/2010 04:59:53 PM · #7

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.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

06/11/2010 05:38:05 PM · #8

Originally posted by Magnumphotography:

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?

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/11/2010 06:07:54 PM · #9

EFS or Ef makes no difference, the 1.6 crop sensor makes the difference.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

06/11/2010 08:13:19 PM · #10

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

EFS or Ef makes no difference, the 1.6 crop sensor makes the difference.

Ok, good, my little world doesn't need to collapse in on itself then.. :)

Prash

Nikon D90

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

06/11/2010 09:41:29 PM · #11

Just to make it a tad more confusing for the OP, this recent ribbon winner was shot with a 24-70 f2.8:

On the other hand,

William88 dominates the 17-55 lens page (most of them here), top scoring example here:

Tells me that it's not just a lens that makes a picture great?;-)

Message edited by author 2010-06-11 21:42:12.

michaelmonn

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

06/12/2010 02:16:44 AM · #12

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.

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

06/12/2010 05:30:53 AM · #13

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?

jimpleasant

06/12/2010 07:57:05 AM · #14

Just bought a Canon Rebel and am looking for a telephoto lense to photograph birds in my back yard. Have no idea on what to get?

michaelmonn

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

06/12/2010 10:28:51 AM · #15

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.

-Max

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

06/12/2010 10:31:39 AM · #16

200mm is a tad short for bird photography. 400mm on a crop body is sometimes short as well.

It depends on the size of the birds and how close you can get before they take off.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

06/12/2010 12:25:55 PM · #17

Man 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.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

06/12/2010 12:31:03 PM · #18

Originally posted by kgeary:

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.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/12/2010 12:38:08 PM · #19

Originally posted by kgeary:

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.

Message edited by author 2010-06-12 12:39:20.