Canon EF 24 - 70mm f2.8 L USM

[koffiejunkie]

My money would go to the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, every time. I've used this lens and it is superb. 24mm isn't terribly wide on a 1.6x crop body. When (if ever) you end up getting a full frame body, you can sell it again - they keep their value very very well.

 

[DGremlin]

Friday i decided to look up a few lenses around the same range as this, amongst others the Sigma's I had a look at were the "18-50mm 2.8 EX", "17-70mm 2.8-45" and "24-70 2.8 EX".
The reason I mention this is because the 17-70mm stood out as quite a good choice for its price, its general review is favourable and taking into consideration that all zooms have to sacrifice something somewhere along the line, it looks quite good.

It is now on my would like to have list.

 

[bwana]

My money would go to the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, every time. I've used this lens and it is superb. 24mm isn't terribly wide on a 1.6x crop body. When (if ever) you end up getting a full frame body, you can sell it again - they keep their value very very well.

So has it yet?

Friday i decided to look up a few lenses around the same range as this, amongst others the Sigma's I had a look at were the "18-50mm 2.8 EX", "17-70mm 2.8-45" and "24-70 2.8 EX".
The reason I mention this is because the 17-70mm stood out as quite a good choice for its price, its general review is favourable and taking into consideration that all zooms have to sacrifice something somewhere along the line, it looks quite good.

It is now on my would like to have list.

f/4.5 cuts your aperture in half which for anyone wanting to shoot indoors is one helluva compromise compared to the others on the other hand you compromise very little with the 24-70.

 

[Dolby]

I wish Canon would make something like a 17-70mm L 2.8 with IS ...

Everything has some compromise :

24-70L 2.8 - L quality, wide aperture - not wide enough on low end, no IS
24-105L 4 - L quality, average aperture - not wide enough on low end, IS
17-55 2.8 - standard quality, wide aperture, wide enough at low end, too close on high end, IS

I'd probably get the 17-55 myself

 

[froot]

I wish Canon would make something like a 17-70mm L 2.8 with IS ...

Everything has some compromise :

24-70L 2.8 - L quality, wide aperture - not wide enough on low end, no IS
24-105L 4 - L quality, average aperture - not wide enough on low end, IS
17-55 2.8 - standard quality, wide aperture, wide enough at low end, too close on high end, IS

I'd probably get the 17-55 myself

Yeah that's pretty much what my problem is. Not one lens really really does/has what I want. Above all I'd rather get one lens to do my bidding than have to swap out lenses at speed for whatever reason, or compromise on something I really want.

 

[bwana]

Proclaiming a lens to be not wide enough or long enough is purely subjective - one man's junk is another man's treasure.

 

[Dolby]

Proclaiming a lens to be not wide enough or long enough is purely subjective - one man's junk is another man's treasure.

Ok.

Let me amend my statement.

IMO, I feel 24mm on a crop body is not wide enough

 

[bwana]

Ok.

Let me amend my statement.

IMO, I feel 24mm on a crop body is not wide enough

That's why there's the holy trinity of lenses. Sure, there is a little overlap towards the bottom but you're covered 100% at f/2.8 between that and 200mm.

 

[hilton]

IMO, I feel 24mm on a crop body is not wide enough

and unfortunately that focal length on the lenses mentioned above were never designed with the crop body in mind.

The perfect crop lens for medium telephoto range is the 15-85. Sharp as Julius and the best range around bar the 18-4000 ones.

 

[DGremlin]

So has it yet?

f/4.5 cuts your aperture in half which for anyone wanting to shoot indoors is one helluva compromise compared to the others on the other hand you compromise very little with the 24-70.

Since I do not know specifically what the lens will be used for 2.8 - 4.5 may well be acceptable.
I liked the lens since it has a wide range from landscape to portfolio, with nice image quality and acceptable aberration and barrelling.

and as you said "one mans junk ..."

 

[bwana]

Since I do not know specifically what the lens will be used for 2.8 - 4.5 may well be acceptable.
I liked the lens since it has a wide range from landscape to portfolio, with nice image quality and acceptable aberration and barrelling.

and as you said "one mans junk ..."

True but I cant recall ever hearing a photographer say . . . Great lens, I just wish it was slower.

 

[koffiejunkie]

So has it yet?

Alas, no. It's behind the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS in the queue, and there are other non-camera items ahead of that. Also, I'm waiting to see what Canon does with the 5DmkII's successor. However long that might take. If it addresses my desires I might ditch the 17-55 idea altogether and go FF.

24-70L 2.8 - L quality, wide aperture - not wide enough on low end, no IS
24-105L 4 - L quality, average aperture - not wide enough on low end, IS
17-55 2.8 - standard quality, wide aperture, wide enough at low end, too close on high end, IS

Assuming you're referring to image quality, don't make assumptions. The 17-55mm f/2.8 is up there with the L zooms in terms of image quality. It's build quality is more consumer-level though.

 

[Dolby]

Assuming you're referring to image quality, don't make assumptions. The 17-55mm f/2.8 is up there with the L zooms in terms of image quality. It's build quality is more consumer-level though.

I mean overall quality - build too.

I said that's the one I'd go for myself

PS I see now reviews rate it highly. Brings me to a question - what is the L designation for? Build or image? Bits of both? Or is the 17-55 a once off where the IQ is the same/better than an L?

 

[hilton]

Or is the 17-55 a once off where the IQ is the same/better than an L?

Ooh no. The 15-85 and 60 macro are considered EF-S L lenses.

 

[bwana]

I mean overall quality - build too.

I said that's the one I'd go for myself

PS I see now reviews rate it highly. Brings me to a question - what is the L designation for? Build or image? Bits of both? Or is the 17-55 a once off where the IQ is the same/better than an L?

Both optical and build quality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_L_lens