Got to love Picnics

[Zeagle]

I recently dropped my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L lens at a picnic, after being covertly assaulted from behind by various nefarious and all to lovable younger cousins.

I have never been one to cry, but as the lens fell in slow motion, all that I could think was please do not break and more importantly do not cry out in shrill voice. Of course I was not so fortunate as the front lens element shattered with various other parts laid strewn around the crime scene. As for the the shriek that emanated, from someone who was not me, well that was far less than composed. All of this leaving me in a state of sadness and wanting to away the day...But alas my misfortune allows me to hopefully get a new toy to replace the sorrow of the loss.

So for the actual reason of the post. Does anyone have any experience with the canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS Lens? Either on a Canon Rebel or 20/30D? I am trying to decide whether to buy a new 24-70 or replace with the 17-55.

Jason

 

[Master Mason]

Have not used the 17-55 but I recently was making the same decision. Everything I read about the 17-55 was steller, except for a few people having problems with the IS motor failing.

I opted for the 24-70 ultimately as it pairs perfectly with my 70-200 f/2.8 and evenutally I will get a UWA lens to compleate the kit.

One thing to keep in mind, is you will have to buy the hood seperately on the 17-55 as well, which raises the price by 50bucks or so. So far all intents and purposes it is the same price.

so really the question is, which will you miss more, the 17-23 range or the 56-70 range and that depends on your style of shooting more than anything.

 

[photo_chick]

So sorry for your loss.

I have heard that once you go "L" it is hard to go back. Not having been able to score an L series I can't attest to that though.

 

[jann1033]

some have said the 17-55 is l glass quality but isn't labeled as such due to the ef-s. i also know some whose opinions i respect that love it...it's out of my price league right now so not even a glimmer in my brain well that plus that even the mention of "IS" makes me get a really awful nervous twitch......

 

[Zeagle]

Good points, I do not believe I would miss the 56-70 range either as I have the 70-200 covered. I just wish that the 24-70 had IS. That seems to be the main difference of the 17-55 IMHO outside of the metal housing and "L" badge.

I opted for the 24-70 ultimately as it pairs perfectly with my 70-200 f/2.8.

so really the question is, which will you miss more, the 17-23 range or the 56-70 range and that depends on your style of shooting more than anything.

Yeah, "L" glass is really addicting and worth every penny in my book .

I have heard that once you go "L" it is hard to go back.

True, true...That is the frustrating part in that the 2 are similar in price and close in optics, but the E-FS lens also will not work on Canon 1.3 or Full Frame bodies. As for the nervous twitch all the better for the IS to handle

some have said the 17-55 is l glass quality but isn't labeled as such due to the ef-s. i also know some whose opinions i respect that love it...it's out of my price league right now so not even a glimmer in my brain well that plus that even the mention of "IS" makes me get a really awful nervous twitch......