-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Have you registered your home solar with Eskom?
17-55 2.8 vs 70-200 2.8
- Thread starter Dolby
- Start date
nanonyous
Expert Member
Depending on which of the 70-200mm f/2.8's you're referring to, I can say that the USM non-IS has fantastic image quality.
Comparing the 17-55 and 70-200 is a kind of... pointless exercise though...
They cover completely different focal lengths, after all. Even if you look at the 70-200mm on a FF body versus the 17-55 on all it can be fitted to, a crop, there's only 18mm worth of effective overlap between the two.
So you ought to be asking yourself which of the two focal length ranges you would benefit from more, not which of the two is the better performing lens overall.
Comparing the 17-55 and 70-200 is a kind of... pointless exercise though...
They cover completely different focal lengths, after all. Even if you look at the 70-200mm on a FF body versus the 17-55 on all it can be fitted to, a crop, there's only 18mm worth of effective overlap between the two.
So you ought to be asking yourself which of the two focal length ranges you would benefit from more, not which of the two is the better performing lens overall.
), maybe a 70-200 is just what I need to get me back in action. 
180g, and yes.
What is really adds is price but you're getting a newer, faster, sharper lens.
nanonyous
Expert Member
So.... 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II, then?
It's even sharper, with less CA, better contrast and better colour accuracy than the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM, which is already a fantastic lens.
You'll kind of need to indicate what you're comparing them to, because comparing the 17-55 and 70-200 lenses against each other for 'quality at a given focal length' is a pointless exercise. In general, as a rule of thumb, below a certain focal length image quality becomes harder to come by. Similarly, above a certain focal length, image quality again becomes harder to come by. In both cases, 'harder to come by' can also be regarded as 'makes the lenses more and more expensive'.
70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II compared to 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM I? Great improvement.
Compared to 75-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM? Great improvement.
Compared to 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM? Great improvement, but half the max reach.
Compared to 135mm f/2L USM in a primes kit? Great improvement.
Compared to 70-200mm f/4L IS USM? Fair improvement, though may not warrant the doubling up in cost.
Compared to the 70-200mm f/4L USM? Great improvement, though again may not warrant the near-quintupling in cost.
Whether the lens offers you the quality you need and/or features you need is something only you can decide. Personally I'd as soon get the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM as it's still weather sealed, loses just one stop of light and is considerably smaller and lighter. It may not perform quite as well as the f/2.8L IS USM, but it costs half as much and, assuming I want to start working in the realm of 400mm and greater, I could get a 400mm f/5.6L USM for the money saved and add a little bit on top for a 1.4x or 2.0x extender.
But that's me, it's not you.
Need moar infoz.
It's even sharper, with less CA, better contrast and better colour accuracy than the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM, which is already a fantastic lens.
You'll kind of need to indicate what you're comparing them to, because comparing the 17-55 and 70-200 lenses against each other for 'quality at a given focal length' is a pointless exercise. In general, as a rule of thumb, below a certain focal length image quality becomes harder to come by. Similarly, above a certain focal length, image quality again becomes harder to come by. In both cases, 'harder to come by' can also be regarded as 'makes the lenses more and more expensive'.
70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II compared to 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM I? Great improvement.
Compared to 75-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM? Great improvement.
Compared to 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM? Great improvement, but half the max reach.
Compared to 135mm f/2L USM in a primes kit? Great improvement.
Compared to 70-200mm f/4L IS USM? Fair improvement, though may not warrant the doubling up in cost.
Compared to the 70-200mm f/4L USM? Great improvement, though again may not warrant the near-quintupling in cost.
Whether the lens offers you the quality you need and/or features you need is something only you can decide. Personally I'd as soon get the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM as it's still weather sealed, loses just one stop of light and is considerably smaller and lighter. It may not perform quite as well as the f/2.8L IS USM, but it costs half as much and, assuming I want to start working in the realm of 400mm and greater, I could get a 400mm f/5.6L USM for the money saved and add a little bit on top for a 1.4x or 2.0x extender.
But that's me, it's not you.
Need moar infoz.
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
Given that I don't own a 70-200mm f/2.8, I rent one often for gigs, and as such, I've shot with all three models a lot. The old models, both IS and non-IS, is pretty much indistinguishable. Yes yes, I know what the benchmarks say, but in use, even on the 18MP 7D, there isn't really anything I can see to differentiate them by. Both are superb - good enough that I would happily buy one second hand to go with either the 7D or with my 5D3. But the new one is even better.
The 17-55mm f/2.8 I would say is comparable in image quality to the older 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses. The bokeh isn't as good, but it's still very good and way better than anything else in that range. Other than that, the only difference to be aware of is that the 17-55mm f/2.8 is not an L lens and not build like one. It's more built like the older 17-85mm lens. Not bad, certainly better than the kit lenses, but just not the same as L glass.
For my money, the 17-55mm f/2.8 on a crop body, and old 70-200mm f/2.8 on a full frame body would be the perfect event combo.
The 17-55mm f/2.8 I would say is comparable in image quality to the older 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses. The bokeh isn't as good, but it's still very good and way better than anything else in that range. Other than that, the only difference to be aware of is that the 17-55mm f/2.8 is not an L lens and not build like one. It's more built like the older 17-85mm lens. Not bad, certainly better than the kit lenses, but just not the same as L glass.
For my money, the 17-55mm f/2.8 on a crop body, and old 70-200mm f/2.8 on a full frame body would be the perfect event combo.
Dolby
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 39,252
- Reaction score
- 6,218
Thanks for the replies.
I was on a phone - so didn't put all hte details. I currently have a 7D and 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens. I took live music from a slight distance and this lens was ideal for my needs. I didn't take my camera to other places or do other things with it.
However after a few months I thought I did need a 'normal' lens for braais or 'standard' events. I bought a 28mm 2.8 which has worked well for me, barring the fact that it's not really that flexible. At my budget though, I liked it. I found it fairly sharp when taking close ups but could no where near match the 70-200 which I was used to.
I'd like a 'normal' lens for the braais, family events etc with a similar quality to what I'm used to.
I was on a phone - so didn't put all hte details. I currently have a 7D and 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens. I took live music from a slight distance and this lens was ideal for my needs. I didn't take my camera to other places or do other things with it.
However after a few months I thought I did need a 'normal' lens for braais or 'standard' events. I bought a 28mm 2.8 which has worked well for me, barring the fact that it's not really that flexible. At my budget though, I liked it. I found it fairly sharp when taking close ups but could no where near match the 70-200 which I was used to.
I'd like a 'normal' lens for the braais, family events etc with a similar quality to what I'm used to.
nanonyous
Expert Member
Well in that case, heavy vignetting till you get to around 45mm when shooting wide open/at f/4.
Sharpness only picks up from around f/4 onwards, too, at which point you might as well have gotten the 24-105mm if the range you intended on using the lens in was ~24-50mm or so, for which the latter has better performance at f/4.
Side benefits; you end up with another weather-sealed lens to go with your 70-200mm that isn't crop-only, and it has an all-metal construction as opposed to part-metal construction.
It's a well-performing lens, it's just worth keeping in mind alternatives and, again, determining what you'll need out of the purchase.
This is again a personal choice, but I'd go for something like the 24-105 instead given the price is similar purely because I'm then afforded a weather-sealed lens to go with a weather-sealed body - not even taking into consideration that it loses a stop of light.
Weather-sealing may never be a concern for you, though.
Sharpness only picks up from around f/4 onwards, too, at which point you might as well have gotten the 24-105mm if the range you intended on using the lens in was ~24-50mm or so, for which the latter has better performance at f/4.
Side benefits; you end up with another weather-sealed lens to go with your 70-200mm that isn't crop-only, and it has an all-metal construction as opposed to part-metal construction.
It's a well-performing lens, it's just worth keeping in mind alternatives and, again, determining what you'll need out of the purchase.
This is again a personal choice, but I'd go for something like the 24-105 instead given the price is similar purely because I'm then afforded a weather-sealed lens to go with a weather-sealed body - not even taking into consideration that it loses a stop of light.
Weather-sealing may never be a concern for you, though.
See if you can rent/borrow the Sigma 17-50 mm f/2.8 OS HSM. Should be roughly half the price of the Canon 17-55, and it is generally sharper wide open over the entire focal length range, but particularly at the longer end.
I've got the Sigma, and it is superbly sharp, beating some of my primes at f/4-f/5.6. The only possible objection to the Sigma is the slightly busy bokeh --- a noticeably brighter ring on the edge of OOF highlights (probably because of the aspherical elements).
nanonyous
Expert Member
Always been the deal-breaker for me on that lens. My sister had one for a short while. The other thing that bothered me about it is that colours on the unit she had tended to come out with a bias towards browns, so all photos had a kind of 'dirty' appearance to them. She now has the 17-70mm f/2.8-4 HSM Macro, which has the same issue - intensely annoying if you accidentally end up resting the lens on your hand such that the focus ring catches.
Strange, but this ergonomic issue has never bothered me on this lens. I mean, I have occasionally touched the focus ring during AF, but my hand is typically under the zoom ring. But I recognise this as a potential problem. In Nikon land, though, the 17-55 f/2.8 does not have VR/IS/OS, which is a more significant shortcoming (for occasional video use).
Of course, if you like to override AF for some reason, this lens may annoy you. But the lens AFs very well on my Nikon body. The focus throw is quite short on many modern lenses anyway, so I find that the AF can usually do a better job than I can.
My main point is simply that the Sigma offers tremendous bang-for-a-buck at half the price of the Canon/Nikon, while not giving up anything in term of image quality. And it carries a better guarantee too.