Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 28, 2008, 11:34 AM   #1
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 18


I am trying to decide between the f2.8s17-55 and the 24-70 to get with a 40d. I like the extra reach of the 24-70 but have some concerns that it might not be wide enough (especially shooting family shots indoors). What do you all think? Also I was talking with a pro yesterday who was saying something like how he would rather back up than use a wide angle as the wide angle starts to distort????

Thanks much for your time.

Carson is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 28, 2008, 3:45 PM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105

on a 40D i am sure u would be happy wiht the 17-55 IS than the 24-70. there is a huge difference between 17mm and 24mm which for me is not compensated by just moving backwards.

24mm converts to roughly 38mm on a FF. And 17mm to around 24mm on a FF. Thats almost 14mm of wide angle coverage. Thats how much one has to backstep to cover between 38mm and 24mm.

So if u will be doing wide angle most of the time 17-55 sounds a better option.

But in my personal experience its always difficult to compensate at wide end moving backwards, while its almost always easy to get the extra tele coverage moving forward.

nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2008, 7:25 PM   #3
Junior Member
Yno's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 27

I bought a 40D and decided to get the 17-55, and I am very happy that I did. In the two months I have had it, the 55-70 mm range would have done very little for me, but I could have used a slightly wider angle on a number of occasions.

When I was shooting film, I used a 28-70 as my standard lens, and bought a 17 to help with the wide stuff. The 17-55 is equivalent to 27-88. My next lens for the 40D will be the Canon 10-22.
Yno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2008, 8:34 PM   #4
Senior Member
dr_spock's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 879

Depends on how much room you have for shooting. I have a small narrow house and find that I'm using 17mm when taking family group photos.
dr_spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 2008, 1:39 AM   #5
Super Moderator
peripatetic's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,598

Yeah, backing up is all very well unless you find you have to back up right into the next room.

Having a wall between you and your subject makes for poor photos in general.


24-70*1.6=>38-112 equivalent. The 24-70 is really a full-frame lens, which is not to say that many people don't like it on the crop cameras, just that it is not designed for the smaller sensor. Proof? Well there are a grand total of ZERO crop-format/DX lenses with that range. All of them, every single one; manufactured by ALL the lensmakers, are full-frame/FX format.

For a standard zoom I would maintain that most people find the wide angle end more useful. There are a whole bunch of good standard zooms for crop cameras that start around 17/18mm and go to 50/70/85/125 at the long end.

This is not to say that some people don't like the 24/28-70 lenses on a crop camera. Some do, but if you are unsure then you are much better off going with something that starts at the 17/18mm mark.

There are now a very wide range of lenses from the different makers covering the standard zoom range on the crop body, ranging from very good (very expensive) down to OK (very cheap).

peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2008, 8:18 AM   #6
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 49

I have the 17-55mm F2.8 and the 70-200mm F2.8 IS and find that the gap between the 2 is easily resolved by taking a few steps forward when using the 17-55mm.

As mentioned in an earlier post backing up (Solid objects are SUCH a pain.) can be a problem in cramped quarters.

Fo my 40D I can not imagine a better (Taking price out of the arguement) 1-2 punch than those 2 lenses.

As an aside: Did you buy the 40D with the 28-135mm? I bought mine with that lens due to the price I got on it. I did have a 28-135mm IS that was (I sold it to fund other puchases) part of a used package that got my feet wet with Dslr. I remember the first time I mounted the 17-55mm on the Rebel and compared the difference from the 28-135. I could see a difference but wasn't as impressed as I thought I would be.

I year later I do the same comparison between the 2 and I am MUCH more impressed with the difference now that I am used to working with the added 2.8 light when looking through the viewfinder. With the live view function the difference is even more pronounced.

So the "kit" lens is going up for sale.
Riktar is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:13 PM.