Questions on EF 24-70mm II on 5D Mk3 vs EF-S 17-55mm on 7D

[Vigood]

After playing with the EF24-70II with 5D3 and EF-S17-55 with 7D, I am completely convinced to sell my EF-S17-55mm. I found out that I am not missing the IS feature and although EF-S17-55 produces sharp images, the images taken by EF24-70II+5D3 pleases my wife more than the EF-S17-55+7D. I gave her multiple image comparisons without letting her know which one is taken by which set and out of 14 pair images, she selected 12 pairs from the 5D+24-70II. She claims that the "images appear livelier"

 

[super mario]

Keep the 7D, sell the 17-55/2.8 IS and buy Sigma 18-35/1.8. That Sigma is as sharp or sharper than most Canon L primes. Definitelly at the same level with the Canon 24-70/2.8 II.

 

[shashinkaman]

Full frame? Full frame of what? What is medium or large format then? Do folks mean the 135/leica/minature format?

I've looked into my crystal ball, and yep, the spirits are telling me that a much more expensive much more recently designed camera and lens combo will be better than the older, substantially cheaper combo.

I nearly fell off my chair.

I bet all the 5D3 + 24-70 f2.8II owners are really delighted with that revelation.

I asked the spirits about the law of diminishing returns and about kit versus ability / technique, they said 'get the light right' and 'get out with your camera more'.

There is a 7D thread on here for pics taken only with a 7D and it demonstrates perfectly what an obselete peice of embarrassing junk the 7D is. Canon actually wrote to me and asked me to file their brand logo off of the flash top.

I can only look with green eyed envy at the 5D3 users, for whom every image is a peach, to the point where I often see folk buying a 5D3 and instantly becoming wedding photographers, no tuition or anything required.

BRILLIANT!! ;D :'(

 

[Pi]

Full frame? Full frame of what? What is medium or large format then? Do folks mean the 135/leica/minature format?

I like big sensors, but 135mm would be too big even for me. I will stick with FF.

 

[Ruined]

If image quality for photos is the only criteria, 24-70II wins easily - but consider the other PROs and CONs.

17-55mm f/2.8 IS PROs:
-Lighter & smaller; even moreso as it is mounted to a crop camera which will be lighter and smaller than FF.
-Image stabilization: can help camera shake in low light, also good for videos
-Good travel lens/non-critical tasks... There may be times you don't want to take $5000+ worth of equipment out with you
-Overall good image quality
-Economical
-More common 77mm filter thread

17-55mm f/2.8 IS CONs:
-Comparatively, image quality no match for 24-70 II. Will be more noise and less detail.
-24-70 II on FF will give you more DOF options to isolate subject moreso than the 17-55
-Build quality not as good as 24-70 II
-No weatherproofing

***

24-70 f/2.8 II PROs:
-Fantastic image quality on all fronts, blows away 17-55 on crop
-Great build quality
-Highly resistant to dust and water

24-70 f/2.8 II CONs:
-Lacks image stabilization, may require more skill/effort to get good shots, not as good for video
-Heavier/bigger
-Expensive, if not overpriced
-Larger 82mm filter thread, though this is one reason the image quality is better

***

So, if image quality is paramount, the 24-70 II wins easily. But there are other factors too as outlined above, which may make it worthwhile to keep both. If I were just out casually snapping photos, I might pick the 17-55. If I was doing something professionally-related, I'd probably go for the 24-70 II.

 

[VelocideX]

I had a 600D / 17-55 and upgraded to a 5D3 / 24-105 and 24-70 II.

The 24-70 II blows the 17-55 away.

• It is much sharper. f/2.8 is outrageously sharp
• I find the colours much more appealing. The saturation is much higher, almost so much that I have to desaturate photos sometimes. On the 17-55 I was usually adding vibrance +10 to 20 and saturation +5 to 10.
• Extra (ie reduced) DOF (about 1 and 1/3 stops) is great
• I find the bokeh more pleasing

I find the 24-105 to be better than the 17-55, but the 24-70 kills both of them hands down.

I do with the 24-70 II had IS, but for capturing social events etc I can still shoot at ISO 25,600 and f/2.8 and produce OK (but not great photos).
ISO 12,800 and f/2.8 is fine so long as the exposure is right.

 

[candc]

i am a believer in going one format or the other, if you already have that stuff get the 24-70ii and ditch the aps-c gear.