Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?message=28575473&changemo...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
Advice needed between Canon 17-55 IS f2.8 and Canon 24-70mm IS 2.8: Canon EOS 40D - 10D Forum: Digital Photography Review
Currently I have a 40D with the kit lens 17-85 and have been taking quite a few photos and learning how to handle and use my new Camera (first DSLR).
Now, I would like to get a better walk about lens and am in a dilemma as to whether to go for Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 or the Canon EF 24-70 f2.8 lens.
I also plan to get a wide angle and telephoto Zoom.
Any advice would be welcome keeping in mind that I am planning a trip to Kenya in December and will be visiting a few Game parks.
Please advice on the required lenses for Landscapes, Wildlife, nature and portrait photography.
|
|
Hi.
From your post i see lots of different situations and no one (or even two) lens's will cover all of them.
For a walk around i suggest the 17-55IS.
It will also do landscapes but is not really long enough for animals out in the wild.
But neither is the 24-70 f/2.8.
As you say you will get other lens's for these situation thats not a issue really.
Personally i find having IS makes the 17-55IS a lot more useful but others will say the 24-70 is better.
--
Dave.
Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
|
|
|
I think the 24-70 L is not stabilized.
Regards
|
|
Quote: :
> I think the 24-70 L is not stabilized.
>
>
Regards
I Think its just a typo in the thread title.
--
Dave.
Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
|
|
I just bought the 17-55, and the image quality blows me away.
There is no better lens on the market for natural/low light photography.
If that's a great interest for you, there's no other choice (if you can handle the price).
Another lens you might consider is the 24-105 f/4L IS.
It gets very good reviews and is in the same price range as the 17-55.
I thought about this one, but I wanted the added speed of the 17-55, but that 105 reach really tempted me.
Another consideration is with the crop factor of the 40D, a 24-70 (or 24-105) isn't that wide.
Here's a sample of my 17-55 shot with natural light.
It's a 100% crop (from a full head photo) with no post-processing, 400 iso, 1/60, f/2.8.
When run through Photoshop, it has that 3D quality some mention.
Image control: Zoom out | Zoom 100% | Zoom in | Expand / Contract | New window
|
|
Quote: :
>
>
Quote: :
> >
I think the 24-70 L is not stabilized
>
>
I Think its just a typo in the thread title.
Sorry, that was a mistake.
The 24-70 is not IS.
|
|
Dan Quote: :
>
I just bought the 17-55, and the image quality blows me away
Well, that shot is quite sharp and clear!
I am impressed! I think, I would go for the faster one too!
Looks like 17-55 is the way to go.
Appreciate everyone's advice here.
Simba
|
|
I was in the same boat as you, and went with the 17-55mm f/2.8.
Very pleased with this lens.
It's a great (albeit heavy) walk-around lens.
But it's also currently the only lens I own, and I'm already wishing I had some additional ammo to work with (macro lens, 70-200 f/4 etc.).
But there's that pesky cost factor...
|
|
Quote: :
> I was in the same boat as you, and went with the 17-55mm f/2.8.
Very
> pleased with this lens.
It's a great (albeit heavy) walk-around
>
Lens. But it's also currently the only lens I own, and I'm already
>
Wishing I had some additional ammo to work with (macro lens, 70-200
>
F/4 etc.). But there's that pesky cost factor...
Yes, cost is always the deciding factor!
I will go with the 17-55 and then closer to my trip, will get the 70-200 f2.8 IS for the wildlife shots in Kenya.
|
|
Quote: :
>
>
Quote: :
> >
I was in the same boat as you, and went with the 17-55mm f/2.8.
Very
> > pleased with this lens.
It's a great (albeit heavy) walk-around
>
> lens. But it's also currently the only lens I own, and I'm already
>
> wishing I had some additional ammo to work with (macro lens, 70-200
>
> f/4 etc.). But there's that pesky cost factor...
>
>
>
Yes, cost is always the deciding factor!
>
>
I will go with the 17-55 and then closer to my trip, will get the
>
70-200 f2.8 IS for the wildlife shots in Kenya.
>
Good choice.
Dont forget to get a hood as the 17-55IS does seem to need it more than some lens's.
--
Dave.
Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
|
|
My conclusions:
17-55 slightly sharper in the middle and significantly sharper around the edges.
24-70 a little warmer in color
24-70 has slightly more bokeh (I assume because it is further away from the sensor)
17-55 IS comes in very handy.
24-70 has better build, but do you really need it?
17mm is SIGNIFICANTLY wider than 24mm.
55mm is NOT significantly shorter than 70mm.
Take 2 steps forward and you're there.
I sold the 24-70.
my test (with images) is here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=24187000
|
|
To 'Simba 52' - I too am quite new to the 40D & the lens choice dilemma.
If you go to my profile you will see that I'm a fellow Aussie & will see where I got my last lens at a good price.
I have found the 17-55 lens, although expensive, a very good general purpose lens.
I have experienced some inconsistencies in getting sharp focus in portraits.
I have just posted for help on this.
'Dan P1' - your response to Simba had a close up of an eye.
I need to post mine.
Whats the procedure on cropping, size & attaching to the post.
Thanks for your help Guys - I have really found it very encouraging.
--
Anton [the West Aussie]
|
|
|
|