24mm f/2.8 Canon EF vs 17-55mm f/2.8 Canon EF-S

[andalusia]

I wonder if there is anybody here who can offer me a comparison of these two Canon lenses...

I have the 24mm f/2.8 lens, and I have the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 non IS version (as well as a 50mm 1.8 and a 75-300mm zoom). By my logic, I should be able to merge these two lenses by selling them both and getting the 17-55mm f/2.8 EF-S IS lens. This would a. give me a wider focal length range of aperture-2.8-goodness, b. give me Image Stabilization which i do not currently have, c. reduce my footprint by shrinking my lens count from 4 down to 3, and d. give me an extra 1mm in wide angle view (ok this one's not really a valid point )

My only question is - is the 17-55mm lens as good as the 24mm lens when shooting at a focal length of 24mm? ie. zoomed in to a length of 24mm to match the prime lens. Is the lens comparable? Is the quality as good? Better? Worse? Or is the prime better?

That's my only concern. I have yet to start saving for this, but I'm starting to think about it now anyway. Can anybody offer any opinions/detail about this?

Thankyou!

[robbieduncan]

The 17-55 is a stunning, fantastic lens. The only downside I can see is that it won't wont on a full frame camera if you ever go that way.

[andalusia]

Originally Posted by robbieduncan

The 17-55 is a stunning, fantastic lens. The only downside I can see is that it won't wont on a full frame camera if you ever go that way.

I noticed that. I do think I'm a few years off upgrading to a full frame though, so I don't see it being a problem just yet. It's one of those bridges I plan to cross when I get to it

[kevinfulton.ca]

Originally Posted by andalusia

I wonder if there is anybody here who can offer me a comparison of these two Canon lenses...

I have the 24mm f/2.8 lens, and I have the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 non IS version (as well as a 50mm 1.8 and a 75-300mm zoom). By my logic, I should be able to merge these two lenses by selling them both and getting the 17-55mm f/2.8 EF-S IS lens. This would a. give me a wider focal length range of aperture-2.8-goodness, b. give me Image Stabilization which i do not currently have, c. reduce my footprint by shrinking my lens count from 4 down to 3, and d. give me an extra 1mm in wide angle view (ok this one's not really a valid point )

My only question is - is the 17-55mm lens as good as the 24mm lens when shooting at a focal length of 24mm? ie. zoomed in to a length of 24mm to match the prime lens. Is the lens comparable? Is the quality as good? Better? Worse? Or is the prime better?

That's my only concern. I have yet to start saving for this, but I'm starting to think about it now anyway. Can anybody offer any opinions/detail about this?

Thankyou!

I try and stick with primes whenever I can, but in this case that 17-55mm would be sharper (mainly in the mid-frame and corners) compared to the 24mm 2.8 at the same focal length. The 17-55 will also show less color fringing in the corners at 24mm. Bokeh is also better on the 17-55 since the 24mm only has a 5 blade aperture. The AF on the 17-55 is also light years ahead of the 24mm (which was originally released back in 1988 BTW). IS is another major upgrade. All that being said, if you had it's replacement (24mm 2.8IS USM) I'd say keep it and just save for the 17-55 to use as a walk around. I would definitely hold on to your 50mm 1.8 for low light situations though. It's still a pretty handy and sharp lens that doesn't add much bulk or weight to your kit. To be honest you won't be able to sell if for much anyway since it's already a very inexpensive lens.

[scottgoh]

EF-S 17-55 2.8 was comparable to the EF24-70L without the "L" tag.

However, if you have the possiblity of upgrading to a Fullframe camera, aviod getting the EF-S lenses.

Scott

[andalusia]

Originally Posted by kevinfulton.ca

I try and stick with primes whenever I can, but in this case that 17-55mm would be sharper (mainly in the mid-frame and corners) compared to the 24mm 2.8 at the same focal length. The 17-55 will also show less color fringing in the corners at 24mm. Bokeh is also better on the 17-55 since the 24mm only has a 5 blade aperture. The AF on the 17-55 is also light years ahead of the 24mm (which was originally released back in 1988 BTW). IS is another major upgrade. All that being said, if you had it's replacement (24mm 2.8IS USM) I'd say keep it and just save for the 17-55 to use as a walk around. I would definitely hold on to your 50mm 1.8 for low light situations though. It's still a pretty handy and sharp lens that doesn't add much bulk or weight to your kit. To be honest you won't be able to sell if for much anyway since it's already a very inexpensive lens.

I don't have it's replacement, I have the original released back in 1988. There's no chance I'm letting go of my 50mm, so from what you've said, it looks like getting rid of the 24mm and my kit lens in favour of the 17-55 would be a very wise option, were I able to save up enough money for it. It sounds like an improvement in nearly every way for sure. Thanks for your reply, this has been very useful, and if anybody else has anything to weigh in, it'd still be very much appreciated

[acearchie]

Whilst I can sing the 17-55mm's praises I will warn you that it is quite prone to getting dust between the elements.

This has been very annoying for me as there is now one tiny piece of hair (~3mm) that crops up in the same spot every photo and I can't for the life of me dislodge it without prying it open which I am not confident in doing yet! In most photos I can get away with it but as I have moved to more studio work with plain backgrounds it can be quite obvious and there is just that extra annoyance in having to remove it.

[kevinfulton.ca]

Originally Posted by acearchie

Whilst I can sing the 17-55mm's praises I will warn you that it is quite prone to getting dust between the elements.

This has been very annoying for me as there is now one tiny piece of hair (~3mm) that crops up in the same spot every photo and I can't for the life of me dislodge it without prying it open which I am not confident in doing yet! In most photos I can get away with it but as I have moved to more studio work with plain backgrounds it can be quite obvious and there is just that extra annoyance in having to remove it.

This is an issue that is mentioned in this review of the lens. For future reference this is a fantastic site to reference for when you're shopping for a new lens. Hope this helps.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

[LongSticks]

Originally Posted by kevinfulton.ca

This is an issue that is mentioned in this review of the lens. For future reference this is a fantastic site to reference for when you're shopping for a new lens. Hope this helps.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

Just my 2p - Digital Picture is my bible for all my Canon purchases....a great site!