Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM

[Zoomo]

Hi

I could do with some advice... I have owned a 400D plus standard 18-55 lense kit for about 6 months ( I bought it for my mum some time ago and "borrowed" it ) and am trying to decide on an upgrade. I would value anyone's thoughts on this. Options I'm considering are;

1) New EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
2) New EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM (with a view I can upgrade to a full frame body sometime in the future)
3) Dive straight in to a 5D Mk II with New EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM
4) Maybe a nice prime I can keep and will mount on any body.

I take cost into consideration but let's say cost isn't a massive deciding factor. I'm a medium to good photographer, mostly I take landscapes, little HDR, I'd like to do more portraits, street photography, maybe do events one day.

Thanks in advance for any ideas.

[senu]

All the options will give you far better than you have now but the 5dm2 with the lens is really a big move from the 400D even withthe 17-55 ( which is awesome on it)
In fact you will get more from the 17-55 with a better body 40D/50D
I fear the 24mm on a 400D may be a bit long although it is clearly a great lens
If you can afford it move on to the 5DMk2 and dont buy any more EF-S lenses

[mark.carline]

Dont forget to check out the Tamron 17-50 !!

[senu]

Originally Posted by mark.carline

Dont forget to check out the Tamron 17-50 !!

That would be a fairly cheap but very decent upgrade on your 400D

I have owned the 17-55 ( Canon) and it is better than the Tamron but not at all by anything like the cost difference. I think the Tamrom is seriuos VFM
The main Tamron issues are noisy AF and slightly less good build quality. Optics, It is way better than the Canon kit lens and not at all poor compared to the 17-55 f2.8

[Zoomo]

Originally Posted by senu

In fact you will get more from the 17-55 with a better body 40D/50D

thanks Senu... out of interest, picture quality wise will the 40D body produce better results than the 400D. Is there any difference in the sensor or is there more to it than that?

[senu]

Originally Posted by Zoomo

thanks Senu... out of interest, picture quality wise will the 40D body produce better results than the 400D. Is there any difference in the sensor or is there more to it than that?

Picture quality wise, you will probably in ideal situations produce near identical images
The actual sensors are different although described as being similar
The 40D is usually compared to the 450D in terms of Pictures re dynamic range ect
What the 30/40D have over the 400D is speed of operation, and also frame rate more usable High ISO ( especialy with RAW) top LCD and quicker access to settings. ( more butons). I think the 30D is better ( desoite being only 8.2Mp) Again the 40D is even better than the 30D .

There is also Live view (if that appeals to you)
However the specs sheet might suggest they are close.. This is one instance where the paper specs dont tell the whole story

[Martin.D]

If money is not object then I would go for the Canon 5D Mk2 plus the 24-70..

If not then then I would follow Senu's advice and go for a 40 or 50D paired with the 17-55 (great lens BTW )...

If Money was a problem then the 5D with lens would be touching 2600 quid and the 50D with 17-55 around 1500 squid...

I dont think you will be disapointed with any of the above combinations but imo the 17-55 would be much better suited on a better body other than the 400...

[dancingmatt]

I've been running similar questions around in my head - got a 350D with 18-55 kit lens and Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro. Used it a hell of a lot, loved it, but photos have often never been as sharp as I'd really like. Do PP in Lightroom.

Am now looking to upgrade but cost is more a factor to me, got about £1500 I can spend altogether. I shoot everything but if I had to prioritise it'd be walkabout/flowers and insects/architecture/sports. Basically I'm pretty sure I want a body with better noise levels in low light and more fps for when I'm at sports.

So I've been about to pull the trigger on a 50D but the mixed reports of noise and ISO levels have put me off. Can keep my Sigma for now I suppose until I can afford something better and maybe get a dedicated macro at some point, thinking the Sigma 105mm. Thinking I'll get a walkabout lens with a bit more range than 18-55, just because I always seem to have the wrong lens on! So this 17-55 and Tamron... hmm....

[senu]

Originally Posted by dancingmatt

I've been running similar questions around in my head - got a 350D with 18-55 kit lens and Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro. Used it a hell of a lot, loved it, but photos have often never been as sharp as I'd really like. Do PP in Lightroom.

The 350D kit lens was not all that. The 17-55 is but is costs a lot ( you could buy a new body and lens (Tamron) with just a little more

Am now looking to upgrade but cost is more a factor to me, got about £1500 I can spend altogether

That is a tidy sum..should get you quite fra TBH

. I shoot everything but if I had to prioritise it'd be walkabout/flowers and insects/architecture/sports. Basically I'm pretty sure I want a body with better noise levels in low light and more fps for when I'm at sports.

40/50D

So I've been about to pull the trigger on a 50D but the mixed reports of noise and ISO levels have put me off.

Read the reports with some circumspection. I have and love the 40D but I dont think the 50D is 1/2 bad
How high do you go on ISO and if you shoot RAW ,and are judicios with NR the 50D will serve you well but then if you got a fast lens you wouldnt need to be using ISO 1600 regularly anyway
The 40D is really good and although a bit old now, the 50D was initially compared to it , and although Im sure it is better in many ways, in some ways it is not much better. Im unconvinced it is poorer though the DP review suggests otherwise.

Can keep my Sigma for now I suppose until I can afford something better and maybe get a dedicated macro at some point, thinking the Sigma 105mm. Thinking I'll get a walkabout lens with a bit more range than 18-55, just because I always seem to have the wrong lens on! So this 17-55 and Tamron... hmm....

Maybe..
My 350D is in my study gathering dust with an "Error 99" but I really used and enjoyed it in its heyday
The 30/40D series are definitely better though .. But then until you actually use them you may wonder how especially when you look at paper specs

[Tobers]

I'd definitely go for the 24-70 2.8. Fantastic lens. The 17-55 2.8 is also excellent on a 1.6 crop body if you can stand the dust that gets sucked in, but you will only have to sell it when you go to a 5D or 1D.

So I'd recommend the 24-70.

If you have the cash, get the 5DII as well and you'll be sorted with an absolutely stunning professional setup whch will do you for many years.

[dancingmatt]

Senu, if you think £1500 will do me well... I can get a 50D body for about £650 but only today Worth doing and if so what would you suggest I spend the other £850 on? (They don't have to be bought today.) I know I can't get one lens to cover all my bases so I need a good walkabout with ideally 18-something-longer-than-55 and a good zoom (hardly seems worth sticking the Sigma 70-300 APO DG on the front of a 50D right?)

It is the noise reports that worry me about the 50D. Maybe I should forget about them, a lot of reviews and reports argue whether its better than the 40D but surely that doesn't mean that the 50D is bad, just that maybe it's not as big an improvement as it should have been. Besides, I see that the cheap prices for 40D on camerapricebuster link to sites that are out of stock.

Thing is, I know I have to expect to do some post-processing and I like Lightroom, but for the amount of photos I take (loads, any and everywhere) I would hope, for spending this sort of money, that I'd be doing less PP not more.

Buy the 50D today or not?! ARGH

[senu]

Buy the 50D for that price, and then Maybe the Sigma 17-70 although the Tamron would be my first choice but it is short at 55mm
What is true is that you can sell off glass if you dont like it
The 17-55 Canon would ideally complememt the 50D but as you say the 55 is not long enough
I have the 17-85 but it is not good enough compared to the 17- 50 Tamron or the 17-55 Canon ( which I had) but Ide rather trade of a sharp fast lens for the loss of Zoom and then use the 70mm onwards of the Sigma
Still you could sell your sigma to fund Canons own 70-200 L f4 or 70-300 IS in addition to the walkabout
Canon has a new 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS (£380) but Im not sure how good it is sufice to say it has to be better than the 17-85 and any kit lens

[dancingmatt]

Originally Posted by senu

Buy the 50D for that price, and then Maybe the Sigma 17-70 although the Tamron would be my first choice but it is short at 55mm
What is true is that you can sell off glass if you dont like it
The 17-55 Canon would ideally complememt the 50D but as you say the 55 is not long enough
I have the 17-85 but it is not good enough compared to the 17- 50 Tamron or the 17-55 Canon ( which I had) but Ide rather trade of a sharp fast lens for the loss of Zoom and then use the 70mm onwards of the Sigma
Still you could sell your sigma to fund Canons own 70-200 L f4 or 70-300 IS in addition to the walkabout
Canon has a new 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS (£380) but Im not sure how good it is sufice to say it has to be better than the 17-85 and any kit lens

Yeah, I'd be silly not to buy the 50D wouldn't I? Especially at this price right?

Why do you think the 17-55 Canon would ideally complement it?

I saw some 50Ds bundled with the 17-85 which sounds like a good practical length but I read that it's not very good. But I take your point, I'd probably rather have a sharper lens too. I just find I'm often looking at something thinking damn, got the wrong lens on. Then of course switching to the Sigma and walking round the corner and yeah, you know...

Why do you think the new 18-135 will be good?

Cheers for all your help

DM

[senu]

Originally Posted by dancingmatt

Yeah, I'd be silly not to buy the 50D wouldn't I? Especially at this price right?

Why do you think the 17-55 Canon would ideally complement it?

It is the best ( and costliest) EF-S lens in existence L glass , fast accurate quiet AF

I saw some 50Ds bundled with the 17-85 which sounds like a good practical length but I read that it's not very good

Canon are simply holding on to the 17-85, whose time has come and long gone IMHO it really is an average lens with a big price tag
Good results are capale wth it but it is more likely to be disappointing if you get a decent body like the 50D and then expect great things
While they dont want to bundle an £800 body with the kit lens , bundling the 17-85 is inpart because nobody will buy it new, for whwt Canon wants for it
I have the 17-85 and I would not buy it in 2009, despite the practical focal length

. But I take your point, I'd probably rather have a sharper lens too.

In short e 50D paired with the 17-85 wont " rock"

Why do you think the new 18-135 will be good?

It certainly wont be as good as the 17-55 but it is better than the 18-55 kit lens and definitely better than the 17-85
How it compares to the Sigma 17-70 or Tamron 17-50 remains to be seen

[RobDickinson]

I'm getting a 7D soon, upgrade from a 350D.

I dont realy have a walk round zoom, 28-80 is about as close as I get.

So looking at the 17-55, 17-50VC, 24-70 etc.

Not sure the 24-70 is the right focal length so borrowing one next week.

Also considering a number of 24-35mm primes...