Hi guys! what would you prefer a 17-55 f2.8 or a 24-70L f2.8? co'z i've been reading some threads about the 17-55 f2.8 and they say that it performs like an L lens.

yep thats what reviews say and some members here have the same lens and are very happy with it. ill prolly choose the 17-55 andjust foot zoom if i need the extra 20mm hehehe.

with the crop factors of non full frame dslrs..i think you'll have more options with the 17-55...especially as a walk around lens, especially with the wide angle aspect..

try this out sir harry.

if you have a lens that can go to 55mm and 70mm. stand at a marked spot and put your lens to 70mm and look through the viewfinder, remember how you composed.

next set your lens to 55mm and look through the viewfinder and try to compose the same way. now take a few steps forward till your view through the viewfinder matches the composition you made when you were at 70mm....how far are you from the marked spot?

you may want to shoot both lenses at the same focal length, at 24mm or 55mm, same aperture and shutter speed, shooting the same subject. shoot at RAW, make sure bridge or photoshop does not do the auto corrections.

analyze the histogram for each photo.

forgot to add, the exercise i put up there like 2 posts before this one is to show you how much foot zoom you need to do to get that additional 20mm zoom range. i guess one factor youre considering is whether that additional 20mm tele end is worth the extra bucks.

IQ wise, the pictures ive seen on the internet say that they are very very comparable. i dont have any of these lenses though coz im cheap hehehe so all my opinions are based on the images ive seen on the net.

forgot to add, the exercise i put up there like 2 posts before this one is to show you how much foot zoom you need to do to get that additional 20mm zoom range. i guess one factor youre considering is whether that additional 20mm tele end is worth the extra bucks.

IQ wise, the pictures ive seen on the internet say that they are very very comparable. i dont have any of these lenses though coz im cheap hehehe so all my opinions are based on the images ive seen on the net.


Chris,

Let me chime in some caveats here if you don't mind.:)

When you do these tests, be mindful of the subject distance. Yes, you will find that in many instances, the difference between a 50mm and an 80mm may just be a step or two away. But remember -- that is if your subject is around 10-15ft. Shoot your subjects in the distance you expect to be shooting.

A friend of mine bought an 85mm f1.8 and my 100 2.0 usm over a year ago together. We stood in the sala and the difference was just 1.5-2 steps if the subject was just 10-12ft away. Ahhh, in the field, it was different. AT churches, where I can't get near, that extra 15mm made sense. The farther I was out, the more that 15mm mattered. Suddenly the distance you have to make up is not just 1 or 2 steps. When the subject is 25 ft or more, you have to walk 5-10 steps to get the same image within the same frame of the other.

Same with wide angles. Maybe even more!:RedEye:

With wides, every 1mm may matter. So, getting a 16mm vs 17mm on the wide side seems pittance. But look into the viewfinder. You will see about 1-2 ft more coverage on that 1mm focusing 8ft away. And the farther it is, the more you will see. So, it's not just a step or two in some cases.

My friend who owns the 85mm f1.8 realized this later on and he understood why I got a 100mm instead of the famous 85mm. When the distance hits 20-25ft or more, that extra 15mm starts pulling in the image that an 85mm couldn't. I told him I got the 100mm because I need that extra 15mm when we can't get close to the couple in churches. And in portraits, I had the tamron 28-75mm so I am covered on the 70-85mm range. Besides, the 100mm, for me, gets me those tight crops of faces. 135mm f2.8 is too long and not as good as a 100mm f2 with a 1.4x TC = 140mm f2.8. I can't afford a 135 f2L or a 70-200 f2.8L anyway, aside from their size and weight.

So, make sure that your subject distance is the one you will be actually using. Because if you are not, you might mislead yourself into getting the wrong focal length. You will find that the difference in focal length is not just a step or two away. And in some instances, you cannot make that step. e.g. in a zoo where you shoot animals and there is a fence. Or in a basketball or soccer game where to step in to get closer means you are playing too. Or in a tight/small room/reception where you can't step back further because there is a wall behind you, or its a ledge going straight down.

There is a reason why these lenses are made and are still being made. Sometimes, the few mm difference can be made up by taking a step or two. But sometimes, they can't.

-Mel


-Mel

good inputs Mel.

thanks sir mel. your points are very strong....

balik na lang po ulit ako sa question ko what would you guys prefer?

balik na lang po ulit ako sa question ko what would you guys prefer?

I would like to have BOTH.

But basing it only on your 2 choices (no cheating)...

- if I was going to a wedding, the 24-70
- if I wanted just 1 lens at the beach, the 17-55
- if I was shooting models with other photogs, the 24-70 (models know L glass)
- if I want to shoot indoors in living rooms, 17-55
- if I want to shoot street, 24-70
- if I had too much coffee, the 17-55
- if I want to shoot still life, the 24-70
- if I want to shoot landscapes, the 17-55
- if I was in an auditorium, the 24-70

I can go on and on and on.

The point is, it doesn't matter squat what we prefer since we can't tell you what kind of photographs you like doing. Pixel peeping is no good since both are too close in terms of image quality. I doubt you can even tell in a blindfold test which image was created with which lens using similar focal lengths & aperture.

Just pick one and let's take pictures.

I would like to have BOTH.

But basing it only on your 2 choices (no cheating)...

- if I was going to a wedding, the 24-70
- if I wanted just 1 lens at the beach, the 17-55
- if I was shooting models with other photogs, the 24-70 (models know L glass)
- if I want to shoot indoors in living rooms, 17-55
- if I want to shoot street, 24-70
- if I had too much coffee, the 17-55
- if I want to shoot still life, the 24-70
- if I want to shoot landscapes, the 17-55
- if I was in an auditorium, the 24-70

I can go on and on and on.

The point is, it doesn't matter squat what we prefer since we can't tell you what kind of photographs you like doing. Pixel peeping is no good since both are too close in terms of image quality. I doubt you can even tell in a blindfold test which image was created with which lens using similar focal lengths & aperture.

Just pick one and let's take pictures.

assuming there is no red ring.
assuming the lenses had no markings whether they were L or whatever..

would one notice the difference?

or an L lens and say, a 50mm f1.8.....

in short, if you look at photos, can you tell if its an L lens or not?

well the 17-55 is supposedly L quality glass....so IQ should be the same?

assuming there is no red ring.
assuming the lenses had no markings whether they were L or whatever..

would one notice the difference?

or an L lens and say, a 50mm f1.8.....

in short, if you look at photos, can you tell if its an L lens or not?

i've always told myslef that "pareho lang yan L or non-L... nasa kumukuha naman yan eh!" pero i ended up eating my words when i first tried an L lens. iba talaga, so i got myself one. to the unfamilliar eye they might not look the same. but for those who know how to look i guess it would make sense.

John

ill choose 17-55 if its not an EFS, rather have the EF mount.

Hi Harry, sorry if this is OT, but have you considered the 24-105 f/4L IS? It's just one stop away from the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, but it's L, works on EF as well as EF-S, and gives you added range from 56-105mm.

i've always told myslef that "pareho lang yan L or non-L... nasa kumukuha naman yan eh!" pero i ended up eating my words when i first tried an L lens. iba talaga, so i got myself one. to the unfamilliar eye they might not look the same. but for those who know how to look i guess it would make sense.

John
this is very true... used to be very satisfied with my 28-135 despite my mentors' constant nagging for me to acquire fast lenses (though one of the two mentors wishes me to jumpship as well:Thinking:)... now that i have given in and bought myself the most affordable "L", gwabe, big difference on sharpness and contrast! So if ever i'll have the budget for fast lenses, guess i'll be aiming for the 24-70 since this would help me a lot, especially during wedding shoots... and it would be more practical to have this since one of these years i'll be upgrading to a full frame DSLR ... that is, if i'll continue staying unmarried. :Grin:

well the 17-55 is supposedly L quality glass....so IQ should be the same?

yep. the reason they dont have the red ring is because its an EF-S model for digital-only cameras. but if you take a look at the specs, it has the same UDs and aspherical elements as the L's. what's good news is that Canon is trying to put their hi-tech specs into some 'affordable' (well, if you can call it that) lenses. like my 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM. it has a UD element w/ Super Spectra coating.

i think IMO the 24-105L has got to be one (if not the) of the best walk-around lens. thats why im selling my 28-135 IS USM na and saving up some extra dough to buy that one (aside from my 24-70L & 70-200L). ha ha.

this is very true... used to be very satisfied with my 28-135 despite my mentors' constant nagging for me to acquire fast lenses (though one of the two mentors wishes me to jumpship as well:Thinking:)... now that i have given in and bought myself the most affordable "L", gwabe, big difference on sharpness and contrast! So if ever i'll have the budget for fast lenses, guess i'll be aiming for the 24-70 since this would help me a lot, especially during wedding shoots... and it would be more practical to have this since one of these years i'll be upgrading to a full frame DSLR ... that is, if i'll continue staying unmarried. :Grin:


you won't regret getting the 24-70 L, that's for sure! hehe

regarding the 17-55 f/2.8 i've tried it out, ang talas nga! but iba pa ren nga yung L, i just can't explain how but certainly it feels like it.


John

and oh yeah one more thing, it has EF-S mount which will not allow you to use it . once you decide to upgrade to a full-frame camera when the time comes =)

answering your question, i'd go for the 24-70 L, no questions asked.

Best,

John