Canon EF-S 17-85mm vs Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L - Please help me!

[rigrx]

Hey Guys!
One Question... I want to Upgrade my lens and actually have the EF-S 17-85mm. Would the 24-70mm f/2.8 Mark 1 be good? Is it worth the money?

I testet both lenses in image quality, build quality and others, but I think that the EF-S is a little bit sharper. Sure, the 24-70 have the lower aperture and so I can shoot better in low light, but the EF-S has image stabilisation... I dont know.

I want to use this lens for Video and Photo, but don't know if this is the best choise for me.

Please help me and give me an advice!

 

[Menace]

Hey Guys!
One Question... I want to Upgrade my lens and actually have the EF-S 17-85mm. Would the 24-70mm f/2.8 Mark 1 be good? Is it worth the money?

I testet both lenses in image quality, build quality and others, but I think that the EF-S is a little bit sharper. Sure, the 24-70 have the lower aperture and so I can shoot better in low light, but the EF-S has image stabilisation... I dont know.

I want to use this lens for Video and Photo, but don't know if this is the best choise for me.

Please help me and give me an advice!

Sounds like you have a crop body therefore you'll lose wide end if you get the 24-70mm but gain at the long end. May or may not be a good thing depending on the type of photography you do.

For a crop body I'd suggest EFs 17-55 f2.8 IS USM - it's constant aperture and very sharp.

 

[Don Haines]

Hey Guys!
One Question... I want to Upgrade my lens and actually have the EF-S 17-85mm. Would the 24-70mm f/2.8 Mark 1 be good? Is it worth the money?

I testet both lenses in image quality, build quality and others, but I think that the EF-S is a little bit sharper. Sure, the 24-70 have the lower aperture and so I can shoot better in low light, but the EF-S has image stabilisation... I dont know.

I want to use this lens for Video and Photo, but don't know if this is the best choise for me.

Please help me and give me an advice!

Sounds like you have a crop body therefore you'll lose wide end if you get the 24-70mm but gain at the long end. May or may not be a good thing depending on the type of photography you do.

For a crop body I'd suggest EFs 17-55 f2.8 IS USM - it's constant aperture and very sharp.

IS is not a good feature when shooting video because if you turn it on it both sucks back power and you can hear the IS on the soundtrack.

On a crop body the 17-55 is a good choice, but on FF don't forget about the 24-70F4... it's as sharp as the F2.8 version, a lot lighter, has IS, but is a slower lens... It's worth considering if you shoot outdoors.

 

[rigrx]

@Don, yes I have a crop camera, but want to upgrade to a full frame in a few months or next year. So I don't prefer the 17-55, because it is just for crop cameras.

@Menace, the 24-70mm f/4 is also a choise, but I don't know which is better. Is the 2.8 version faster? I don't care about the extra weight... I shoot outdoors and indoors so the lower aperture would better for me?

I have the 70-200mm f/2.8 too, so the the 24-70mm would perfectly fit in...

 

[Menace]

@Menace, the 24-70mm f/4 is also a choise, but I don't know which is better. Is the 2.8 version faster? I don't care about the extra weight... I shoot outdoors and indoors so the lower aperture would better for me?

I have the 70-200mm f/2.8 too, so the the 24-70mm would perfectly fit in...

24-70 2.8 will be better and will go well with your 70-200 2.8

 

[rigrx]

@Menace, the 24-70mm f/4 is also a choise, but I don't know which is better. Is the 2.8 version faster? I don't care about the extra weight... I shoot outdoors and indoors so the lower aperture would better for me?

I have the 70-200mm f/2.8 too, so the the 24-70mm would perfectly fit in...

24-70 2.8 will be better and will go well with your 70-200 2.8

Okay thank you for your help. I think I'm gonna buy the 24-70mm f/2.8

 

[Random Orbits]

It comes down to price. I'd skip the original version of the 24-70L and look for the canon refurb of the 24-70L II. If that is out of the budget, it might be worth considering the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC.

 

[preppyak]

IS is not a good feature when shooting video because if you turn it on it both sucks back power and you can hear the IS on the soundtrack.

Well, you can turn it off if you have to. Or, the more reasonable solution is to capture audio not directly into the camera, since even with ML audio controls are limited.

 

[rigrx]

@Random Orbits Well, the 24-70L II is a little bit overpriced (i think) and out of my budget. Is the Tamron better than the Canon?

 

[Random Orbits]

@Random Orbits Well, the 24-70L II is a little bit overpriced (i think) and out of my budget. Is the Tamron better than the Canon?

The Tamron has better IQ than the original 24-70L and it has IS/VC. Another option is Canon's 24-70 f/4 IS, although it might make more sense to get that lens as a kit with a FF camera or as white box (already split from a kit).

 

[rigrx]

@Random Orbits What do you mean with IQ? Today I bought the 24-70mm f/2.8. This is a fantastic lense! I know that it don't make much sense, but I will upgrade to a FF in a few months, and yet I think I have a perfect set - a 50mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 and a 8mm f/3.5. What do you think? Is it a good set?

 

[Random Orbits]

@Random Orbits What do you mean with IQ? Today I bought the 24-70mm f/2.8. This is a fantastic lense! I know that it don't make much sense, but I will upgrade to a FF in a few months, and yet I think I have a perfect set - a 50mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 and a 8mm f/3.5. What do you think? Is it a good set?

Yes, it is an excellent set. It makes much more sense on FF than on an APS-C camera.

The Tamron is generally well regarded and has VC, which is a plus. The comparison between the two can be seen at the link below. Generally, the Tamron seems to perform better in the center whereas the Canon tends to perform better into the corners, so it really comes down to cost. The Tamron is usually less expensive and has VC compared to the Canon, but if you got a good deal on the Canon, then it's a toss up.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=786&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[Cgdillan]

I would definitely recommend the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VS or the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L v2

The IS (or VS) on the Tamron is a great feature for video and stills when your shooting at the long end. I've never had an issue with IS sound in-camera, but that may be also because I don't often use the audio form the camera.

The price difference alone might make the Tamron more worth it, and it is a great lens. But the Canon is unbeatable in sharpness and lack of distortion.

 

[jeffa4444]

The direct replacement for the EF-S 17-85mm is the EF-S 15-85mm which is a better lens but the best EF-S zoom is the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8

 

[Mr_Canuck]

Keep your 17-85. You seem to be satisfied with it.

If you get a full-frame camera in the future, then buy the full-frame lens at that time. There may be new ones coming, or you might find a deal when it's relevant. But why spend money on a lens that you apparently don't need, for a camera you don't own?

 

[dgatwood]

Keep your 17-85. You seem to be satisfied with it.

If you get a full-frame camera in the future, then buy the full-frame lens at that time. There may be new ones coming, or you might find a deal when it's relevant. But why spend money on a lens that you apparently don't need, for a camera you don't own?

Agreed. The 17-85 is a solid lens. The 15-85 is a step up, but probably not enough to justify the cost. And if you ever go full-frame later, that's money down the drain.

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=32

Alternatively, you might wait, save up the extra few hundred bucks, and buy a 6D/24-105L kit. That will do far more for your image quality than any lens upgrade by itself, and it's not a lot more than the eBay prices for the original 24-70 f/2.8 lenses. And the 24-105 is also sharper than the original 24-70 L f/2.8 even when stopped down to f/4, according to LensRentals.

So IMO, the only reason you should even consider the original 24-70 f/2.8 L is if you shoot a lot of sports and really need the f/2.8. Maybe not even then. The increased ISO capabilities of a full-frame body will usually do a lot more for you in terms of usable low-light performance than a single extra f-stop on the lens.

 

[lescrane]

Keep your 17-85. You seem to be satisfied with it.

If you get a full-frame camera in the future, then buy the full-frame lens at that time. There may be new ones coming, or you might find a deal when it's relevant. But why spend money on a lens that you apparently don't need, for a camera you don't own?

Agreed. The 17-85 is a solid lens. The 15-85 is a step up, but probably not enough to justify the cost. And if you ever go full-frame later, that's money down the drain.

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=32

Alternatively, you might wait, save up the extra few hundred bucks, and buy a 6D/24-105L kit. That will do far more for your image quality than any lens upgrade by itself, and it's not a lot more than the eBay prices for the original 24-70 f/2.8 lenses. And the 24-105 is also sharper than the original 24-70 L f/2.8 even when stopped down to f/4, according to LensRentals.

So IMO, the only reason you should even consider the original 24-70 f/2.8 L is if you shoot a lot of sports and really need the f/2.8. Maybe not even then. The increased ISO capabilities of a full-frame body will usually do a lot more for you in terms of usable low-light performance than a single extra f-stop on the lens.

I found that the upgrade from 17-85 USM IS to the 15-85 USM was well worth the cost. The lens is somewhat sharper, much less CA and I find that those 2mm are a big difference for wide landscapes. I think the 15-85 is a great value. before buying a I rented it along with the 24-105 L and could barely see a difference in tests in overlapping focal lengths. Can't speak to video at all as i don't do it.