Is the glass difference between these two lenses really remarkable?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by igmolinav, Dec 4, 2010.

  1. igmolinav macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #1
  2. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #2
    There are no EF-S L lenses. It's that simple. Optically the 17-55 lens you linked to is as good as a L lens but as it's not full-frame compatible it's not one.
     
  3. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #3
    You just got hung up on a marketing scheme: Canon never blesses lenses for crop sensors with the red L.

    The 17-55 mm is optically excellent and probably the difference in construction (high-quality plastics vs. a lot of metal) account for a large chunk of the price difference already. The 17-55 mm is optically excellent, has a large initial aperture and IS. If you have a crop sensor camera and need a normal focal length range of 28~70 mm full frame equivalent, it's the best lens.

    Third-party lenses never get the L badge, even though there are some lenses that rival or best what Canon puts out (ditto for Nikon and Sony lenses, for instance).
     
  4. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #4
    optically they are comparable. the 17-55 is usually the better choice because it has the more useful focal length range.
     
  5. jdavtz, Dec 4, 2010
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2010

    jdavtz macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Location:
    Kenya
    #5
    The focal lengths are completely different so I'm not quite sure that any comparison is hugely helpful, unless you're debating between, for example, a 5D2 + 24-105/4L vs. 7D + 17-55/2.8

    I previously owned a 40D and 17-55/2.8, and that lens took great photos. But I always missed the 50/1.4 views I used to shoot on my film camera, so about a year ago I sold that combo and replaced it with a 5D2 and 24-105.

    Overall the 5D2+24-105 combo is better. The image quality is higher, although I can't tell you how much of that is camera and how much of that is lens. The 24-105 is water-sealed, if that matters to you. The 24mm on full frame is noticeably wider than 17mm on 1.6x crop frame. 105mm is longer than 55mm x1.6. f/4 is obviously slower than f/2.8, but I have a 50/1.4 for when I'm needing more light.

    Edit: sorry I completely misread the link, you were talking about the 24-70/2.8, but still the focal lengths are really different!
     
  6. igmolinav thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #6
    Hi,

    Thank you for your posts : ) !!!

    I am still saving for my gear. However, if I happen
    to buy any of the two lenses, I feel more attracted
    to using the the f/2.8 lenses, in spite of their shor-
    ter focal lengths.

    Very kind regards,

    igmolinav.
     
  7. Designer Dale macrumors 68040

    Designer Dale

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Location:
    Folding space
    #7
    Hi.

    Lens Rental is a good place to look at lenses. They offer specs and an opinion/review. You can rent the lenses to compare them if it gets down to that.

    Here are links for their reviews.

    17-55

    24-70

    Tamron makes good lenses at great prices. The quality is less than L and more than kit.

    Tamron 17-50 2.8

    Tamron 28-75 2.8

    Dale
     
  8. TheReef, Dec 4, 2010
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2010

    TheReef macrumors 68000

    TheReef

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Location:
    NSW, Australia.
    #8
    ^

    The Tamron 28-75mm is an amazingly sharp lens, don't let the lack of Canon name put you off, it's an excellent performer.
    It's also a lot cheaper than the Canon...
     
  9. igmolinav thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #9
    Hi,

    Thank you for your posts again : ) !!!

    Lens rental is a cool website : ) !!!

    Kind regards,

    igmolinav.

    P.S. When you say:
    Does "kit" refer to the lens that belongs to the camera brand ??
    If so, do you mean that the Tamron 17-50 mm. f/2.8 does better
    than the non-"L" Canon lens 17-55 mm. f/2.8 ??
     
  10. panoz7 macrumors 6502a

    panoz7

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #10
    Dale can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that he was referring to "kit" as the kit lens that sometimes comes bundled with camera bodies. With canon crop bodies that lens is most often the ef-s 18-55 IS.

    I found the Tamron 17-50 to be fairly similar in performance to the Canon 17-55. The IS system was a little louder on the tamron and the Canon has faster / quieter USM focusing and definitely has a leg up in build quality. Optically they were quite similar, with the Tamron maybe having a slight edge. I ended up purchasing the Tamron as a birthday present for my girlfriend, and I think I made the right choice. That said, I may have just gotten a ringer of a Tamron or the Canon I was testing it against may have been a dud. For that reason I would highly recommend testing the lenses at a local camera shop and coming to your own conclusions.

    I own the Tamron 28-75 as well. It's the last lens in my kit that I need to "convert" to L. I think that says a lot about the Tamron's image quality. The only reason I'm considering upgrading is for the 24-70 2.8 L's faster autofocus and weather proofing. Optically both lenses are fantastic performers. The Tamron also weighs a lot less than the canon version, which is often overlooked.
     
  11. jabbott macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    #11
    Back in March I was deciding between the same two lenses and decided on the 24-70mm. The 17-55mm had been known in the past to have IS failure, which I could not accept given its price. The good news there is that the reliability of the 17-55mm appears to have improved dramatically this year. Based on the annualized repair rates from lensrentals.com, the repair rate for the 17-55mm is 7.7% this year compared to 20-29% for previous years. At the time I made my purchasing decision, all I knew about were the higher failure rates...

    I liked that the 24-70mm could be used on either a full-frame or crop camera body, making it a little more "future proof". Here is a side-by-side comparison of the two lenses. I think the 17-55mm looks slightly softer than the 24-70mm at equivalent focal lengths and apertures. While I find the focal length range on the 24-70mm to be very versatile (even on a crop camera body), there are still times that I switch over to a 10-22mm. I have a feeling I would not have needed two lenses if I had just gone with the 17-55mm.

    Those have been my experiences. Best of luck with your decision!
     
  12. igmolinav thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #12
    Hi,

    Thank you very much again : ) !!!

    Very kind regards,

    igmolinav
     
  13. Designer Dale macrumors 68040

    Designer Dale

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Location:
    Folding space
    #13
    ^^ Yes in regards to "kit". The plastic lens that comes with the camera.

    Dale
     
  14. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #14
    Second you there....

    But with Tamron rebates and a 6 year warranty there should be little worry...
     
  15. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #15
    And so the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. A shorter and wider lens, but quite good nevertheless. I have a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 that is quite good, too.

    The Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro is another non-L lens that has excellent glass.
     
  16. igmolinav thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #16
    Hi,

    Thank you : ) !!! Nice lenses! I tried the 11-16 mm.
    the other day.

    Kind regards,

    igmolinav
     

Share This Page