To L or not to L?

Dec540 · 01-27-2010, 05:49 AM

Hey guys,

I'm going to be purchasing a brand new 50D in the near future but can't decide what lens i should get. I'm tossing up between the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 or the 24-70mm L series f2.8. I have read reviews of both and they both sound like awesome lenses.

Pros of the 17-55mm : Its $400 cheaper, its wider (i like doing close ups etc. so the extra 7mm will most likely make a difference.

Cons : It can not be used with a full frame sensor so when i upgrade to a 5D in 18months or so i will have to get a new lens. Apparently the L's are weather sealed but the 17-55 is not.

Any other pros/cons? Any recommendations? I've been thinking I'm best off buying a lens for the camera I'm buying now and not the one i may buy in the future

radiantm3 · 01-27-2010, 07:13 AM

EF-S is designed for a crop camera so comparing a EF-S @ 17mm and EF @ 24mm is a bigger difference than you think. It's not just a 7mm difference on a crop camera.

L lenses are (generally) going to be sharper, provide a much better image quality, bokeh, and better colors. After you own an L lens, you won't want to buy anything else. That could be a con. :P

However, if you need something wider, then you might not have much choice. I bought the EF-S 10-22mm back when I had a crop. I was in the same scenario as you (only I wanted an ultra-wide). I wanted to get the L ultra-wide, but knew it wouldn't be wide enough on a crop camera. So I just went with the EF-S. Used it for a year and sold it when I moved to full frame. Lenses hold their value fairly well as long as you take care of them.

Another option for you is possibly going with the 16-35mm/2.8 L? That could be wide enough for your needs on a crop for now and will be a must-have lens once you go full frame.

Derek Zoolander · 01-27-2010, 08:16 AM

L if you can afford it.

888 · 01-27-2010, 08:27 AM

as per radiantm3,

go for what is best for your needs now. if you get the 17-55 you will be able to sell both. If cash is tight consider a secondhand 40D. 18 months is a long time in the photography world. the 17-55 is basically an L just without the red ring.

remmib · 01-27-2010, 10:14 AM

If you're only going for one lens, go with the 17-55, because the 24-70 is not wide enough on a crop body, so you need a second wide lens like the 10-22.

vachss · 01-27-2010, 10:19 AM

The 17-55/2.8 is widely regarded as the best zoom lens in the EF-S system. While its build quality isn't up to L standards its optical quality certainly is. The EF-S system isn't going anywhere, and if you go full frame you'll find it easy enough to sell the 17-55.

My advice would be to find one used for about $800-850. When/if you need to sell it you'll be able to turn it around with minimal loss.

E92NV · 01-27-2010, 10:20 AM

I would get the 24-70. I had the 17-40 and I just sold it bc i needed more reach instead of the wideness.

ichiban · 01-27-2010, 12:05 PM

I'd say if your planning on going to FF in 18 months, i'd still say you should pick up the 17-55 2.8 IS because of the 3 stop IS, it's a very sharp lens and a lot of pro photogs keep a crop body with them just so they can use this lens. I think during the 18 months, the 17-55 is a better focal range for you to develop your photographic eye and reflexes which i think is more important than gear. And besides, the 17-55 2.8 IS keeps it's value very well and there doesn't seem to be a successor in line unlike the 24-70 L which is due for mark II.

IMO, buy a used 17-55 2.8 IS, and sell it to fund for a 24-70L when you go FF.

PNF · 01-27-2010, 12:05 PM

umm.. 17-55mm f2.8 is just as sharp as the 24-70L. 17-55mm also has IS, while 24-70L does not. It makes a difference if you do a lot of indoor shooting or your hand isnt exactly steady.

The only real downside of 17-55mm is, IMO, it is not FF capable and it is not L. Weather-sealed or not, that doesnt really make a big difference unless you shoot in extreme conditions often (say in desert most of the time, in extreme cold or hot weather, etc).

24-70mm is not even close to wide enough if you use that as your only lens and walk around lens.

OR get this

16-35L MKII. its wide enough, its a L, its sharp.

In Summary, 17-55mm IS USM is certainly built like a L and performs like a L.

PS. You're getting a 50D? I might be considering selling mine. (in excellent condition and still have all original box/manual/everything). Have used this for about 9 months now.

PM me if you're interested.

PNF · 01-27-2010, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ichiban

I'd say if your planning on going to FF in 18 months, i'd still say you should pick up the 17-55 2.8 IS because of the 3 stop IS, it's a very sharp lens and a lot of pro photogs keep a crop body with them just so they can use this lens. I think during the 18 months, the 17-55 is a better focal range for you to develop your photographic eye and reflexes which i think is more important than gear. And besides, the 17-55 2.8 IS keeps it's value very well and there doesn't seem to be a successor in line unlike the 24-70 L which is due for mark II.

IMO, buy a used 17-55 2.8 IS, and sell it to fund for a 24-70L when you go FF.

+1

bosstones · 01-27-2010, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by remmib

If you're only going for one lens, go with the 17-55, because the 24-70 is not wide enough on a crop body, so you need a second wide lens like the 10-22.

+1. I have a crop cam and ended up with 2 lens in both those focal ranges. I started off with the 24-70 and needed something wider. Love the 10-22, though.

Depends on what you tend to shoot, though (obviously). I only take occassional telephoto/zoom shots so I just suffer without. 90+% of my pix are close or require something wide so I'm a little biased...

Dr_Jones · 01-27-2010, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 888

as per radiantm3,

go for what is best for your needs now. if you get the 17-55 you will be able to sell both. If cash is tight consider a secondhand 40D. 18 months is a long time in the photography world. the 17-55 is basically an L just without the red ring.

i want something fast in this range. What a horrible hobby.

I went the second hand 40D route. great camera...probably too much for my hands. but i would say 'give a 50d a hard look' as i think the prices are better than when i purchased courtesy of 7d and you may be able to get another stop of useable ISO.

17-55 FTMFW

ichiban · 01-28-2010, 04:07 AM

As a matter of fact, I have a LN 50D for 850 and it comes with canon grip, extra battery and has every that came with it brand new except for the box. I do have the box for the battery grip tho. Let me know if your interested. I can take some pictures as well.

Dec540 · 01-28-2010, 05:32 AM

Thanks guys, some very valid points. I think i will be going for the 17-55 as its got the IS and because it has a much for usable focal range for my style of photography.

PNF - I have just purchased wheels for my car so it looks like it will be at least another month until i have some spare cash for a camera. That and being in Australia i figure i'm better off buying one over here so i have the warranty etc.

01-27-2010, 05:49 AM	#1
Dec540 Captain 136 Rep 677 Posts Drives: M2 LCI Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sunshine Coast, Australia iTrader: (0)	To L or not to L? Hey guys, I'm going to be purchasing a brand new 50D in the near future but can't decide what lens i should get. I'm tossing up between the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 or the 24-70mm L series f2.8. I have read reviews of both and they both sound like awesome lenses. Pros of the 17-55mm : Its $400 cheaper, its wider (i like doing close ups etc. so the extra 7mm will most likely make a difference. Cons : It can not be used with a full frame sensor so when i upgrade to a 5D in 18months or so i will have to get a new lens. Apparently the L's are weather sealed but the 17-55 is not. Any other pros/cons? Any recommendations? I've been thinking I'm best off buying a lens for the camera I'm buying now and not the one i may buy in the future
	Appreciate 0 Tweet Quote

01-27-2010, 07:13 AM	#2
radiantm3 Apex Everything! 976 Rep 4,378 Posts Drives: 2007 Honda S2000, 2017 GT350 Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Cedar Park, TX iTrader: (6) Garage List 2011 E92 M3 [9.35] 2014 BMW i3 [10.00]	EF-S is designed for a crop camera so comparing a EF-S @ 17mm and EF @ 24mm is a bigger difference than you think. It's not just a 7mm difference on a crop camera. L lenses are (generally) going to be sharper, provide a much better image quality, bokeh, and better colors. After you own an L lens, you won't want to buy anything else. That could be a con. :P However, if you need something wider, then you might not have much choice. I bought the EF-S 10-22mm back when I had a crop. I was in the same scenario as you (only I wanted an ultra-wide). I wanted to get the L ultra-wide, but knew it wouldn't be wide enough on a crop camera. So I just went with the EF-S. Used it for a year and sold it when I moved to full frame. Lenses hold their value fairly well as long as you take care of them. Another option for you is possibly going with the 16-35mm/2.8 L? That could be wide enough for your needs on a crop for now and will be a must-have lens once you go full frame. __________________ 2011 E92 M3(Sold). 2007 Honda S2000 (Track Car). 2016 Cayman GT4 (Sold). 2017 Shelby GT350 (AKA Crowd Killer). My pet project: https://stickershift.com
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-27-2010, 08:16 AM	#3
Derek Zoolander Banned 90 Rep 1,873 Posts Drives: 09 E90 M-Sport Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Nashua, NH iTrader: (0)	L if you can afford it.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-27-2010, 08:27 AM	#4
888 I'm takin' the day off. 111 Rep 339 Posts Drives: M Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: USA iTrader: (0)	as per radiantm3, go for what is best for your needs now. if you get the 17-55 you will be able to sell both. If cash is tight consider a secondhand 40D. 18 months is a long time in the photography world. the 17-55 is basically an L just without the red ring. __________________ If I were to agree with you we would both be wrong.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-27-2010, 10:14 AM	#5
remmib General 1568 Rep 29,202 Posts Drives: 2013 F10 520d M-Sport Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Norway iTrader: (0)	If you're only going for one lens, go with the 17-55, because the 24-70 is not wide enough on a crop body, so you need a second wide lens like the 10-22. __________________ F10 520d M-Sport Alpine White \| HRE P43SC 20x9+20x11 \| Michelin PSS 255/35+295/30 \| KW V3 Coilover \| M5 Front Sway Bar + M550d Rear Sway Bar \| 3DDesign Front Lip \| BMW M Performance CF Spoiler \| BMW M Performance Diffuser \| BMW M Performance Black Grills \| BMW M Performance Pedals \|
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-27-2010, 10:19 AM	#6
vachss Captain 55 Rep 815 Posts Drives: Z4 Coupe Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ventura County, CA iTrader: (1)	The 17-55/2.8 is widely regarded as the best zoom lens in the EF-S system. While its build quality isn't up to L standards its optical quality certainly is. The EF-S system isn't going anywhere, and if you go full frame you'll find it easy enough to sell the 17-55. My advice would be to find one used for about $800-850. When/if you need to sell it you'll be able to turn it around with minimal loss.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-27-2010, 10:20 AM	#7
E92NV Second Lieutenant 12 Rep 283 Posts Drives: E92 alpine white Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Long island NY iTrader: (2)	I would get the 24-70. I had the 17-40 and I just sold it bc i needed more reach instead of the wideness. __________________ wtb: tial bov w charge pipe, Injen intake
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-27-2010, 12:05 PM	#8
ichiban Colonel 94 Rep 2,012 Posts Drives: 08 135i Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bay Area, CA iTrader: (2)	I'd say if your planning on going to FF in 18 months, i'd still say you should pick up the 17-55 2.8 IS because of the 3 stop IS, it's a very sharp lens and a lot of pro photogs keep a crop body with them just so they can use this lens. I think during the 18 months, the 17-55 is a better focal range for you to develop your photographic eye and reflexes which i think is more important than gear. And besides, the 17-55 2.8 IS keeps it's value very well and there doesn't seem to be a successor in line unlike the 24-70 L which is due for mark II. IMO, buy a used 17-55 2.8 IS, and sell it to fund for a 24-70L when you go FF.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-27-2010, 12:05 PM	#9
PNF Colonel 165 Rep 2,355 Posts Drives: 15' YMB F80 M3 Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Wayne, PA / Taipei iTrader: (4)	umm.. 17-55mm f2.8 is just as sharp as the 24-70L. 17-55mm also has IS, while 24-70L does not. It makes a difference if you do a lot of indoor shooting or your hand isnt exactly steady. The only real downside of 17-55mm is, IMO, it is not FF capable and it is not L. Weather-sealed or not, that doesnt really make a big difference unless you shoot in extreme conditions often (say in desert most of the time, in extreme cold or hot weather, etc). 24-70mm is not even close to wide enough if you use that as your only lens and walk around lens. OR get this 16-35L MKII. its wide enough, its a L, its sharp. In Summary, 17-55mm IS USM is certainly built like a L and performs like a L. PS. You're getting a 50D? I might be considering selling mine. (in excellent condition and still have all original box/manual/everything). Have used this for about 9 months now. PM me if you're interested. __________________ 2015 F80 Fully loaded (minus the CCB) YMB M3 / Individual Amaro Brown BBS \| KW \| Vorsteiner \| IND \| Akrapovic \| BMW CF Performance Interior \| Brembo \| Eibach 2008 E92 335i (sold)
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-28-2010, 04:07 AM	#13
ichiban Colonel 94 Rep 2,012 Posts Drives: 08 135i Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bay Area, CA iTrader: (2)	As a matter of fact, I have a LN 50D for 850 and it comes with canon grip, extra battery and has every that came with it brand new except for the box. I do have the box for the battery grip tho. Let me know if your interested. I can take some pictures as well.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-28-2010, 05:32 AM	#14
Dec540 Captain 136 Rep 677 Posts Drives: M2 LCI Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sunshine Coast, Australia iTrader: (0)	Thanks guys, some very valid points. I think i will be going for the 17-55 as its got the IS and because it has a much for usable focal range for my style of photography. PNF - I have just purchased wheels for my car so it looks like it will be at least another month until i have some spare cash for a camera. That and being in Australia i figure i'm better off buying one over here so i have the warranty etc.
	Appreciate 0 Quote