View Single Post
      04-19-2012, 12:53 AM   #10
chaFT328i
Private First Class
United_States
3

 
chaFT328i's Avatar
 
Drives: e90 07 328i
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: SoCal 626


Posts: 198
iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by vachss View Post
As an owner of plenty of L lenses I really disagree with this. The L designation is only used for full frame lenses, but the 17-55 EF-S has optics that are at least the equal of many L zooms. I've owned both the 17-55 and the 24-70L in the past and think that the EF-S is actually the sharper of the two. Certainly it has a more useful zoom range on crop bodies (and it has IS). I will agree that the build quality isn't of the "main battle tank" level used on the 24-70, but that's about the only area in which it suffers by comparison. Once you add the 17-55 into the mix the 17-40L becomes pretty superfluous as well.

I've often heard the argument that EF-S is worthless if you're ever planning to go FF. The problem is that if you have a crop body today then EF-S lenses may very well be your optimum choice today. Good lenses, L or EF-S, can always be sold without much loss. If you go FF, sell your EF-S lenses and buy the lenses you need then. Likely as not, though, even when you go FF you'll want to keep a crop body around for some things and may decide to keep your high quality EF-S lenses after all.

To the OP I'd ask what problem are you trying to solve? L lenses can be the right choice for some things, EF-S lenses for others and manual focus primes for still others. For high quality general purpose use I'd recommend the EF-S 17-55, for shooting in a war zone or inclement weather I'd recommend the 24-70 (and a 1-series body), for low light and shallow DOF subjects nothing beats fast primes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hieu1004 View Post
I've owned all of the lenses in question and have used them both on my 7D and 5D Mark II - so I'll give my 2 cents.

The 17-40L is a fantastic lens but is a little soft at the corners when stopped down. This lens shines on FF, so I would pick the 17-55mm EF-S lens if you're looking for one around this focal length. It's faster and has more range - more ideal for a crop camera.

24-70 and 24-105 perform very similar, but I prefer the 24-70 because of the 2.8. It really comes down to range vs aperture, what do you need? IMO, a 24mm on a crop sensor is not that wide (if it's going to be your widest lens), so it all depends on what lenses you have currently.
The reason why I have the lenses with f/4 aperture on the list is because I'm fine with that aperture for filming. I currently only have a nifty-fifty(50mm f/1.8) since that will always be my backup prime. I wanted to start fresh and this is where I've ended up. My plan was to get a 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM for track days and whatever else lens for everything else.

What I'm trying to determine is a lens as my go-to lens for video AND photography. After a long night of reading and comparing, I've narrowed it down to either the 24-105 f/4L or 17-55 f/2.8. Both seem to be just a tad sharper than the 24-70 f/2.8(not to mention the price tag). Since I'll still be using a crop sensor, it seems like the 17-55 f/2.8 could be the winner. How would the 24-105 f/4 be more superior? Obviously the L series' standards(weather proof) is a big one.