Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS vs 16-35mm 2.8L+24-70mm 2.8L

[rapid]

Hi All,

Currently shooting with a 16-35mm and a 24-70mm on a 30d which is a pretty cool combo.. but I'm starting to wonder if its the right choice...

I'm just about to pull the trigger on a 70-200mm 2.8 IS and wonder if this is too many lenses for the range when shooting in dark and dingy venues at gigs / bands.. I just get the feeling I would prefer to have the wide with a little reach then move on to the 70-200 for closer up individual shots.. I think I'm gunna find myself needing to do 3 lense swaps per band, which when venue rules only let you shoot 3 songs, its a lot of time lost..

Has anyone here made the move from the 16-35/24-70 to the 17-55?

I wonder how much the IS would help in low light gig shoots, when I was shooting the pigeon detectives a few weeks back the floor was moving up and down about an inch.. it must have played some part in the blur i experienced in a lot of my photos..

Any thoughts / advice? I'm not looking to move body any time soon, so I dont mind the EF-S only 17-55..

I'm thinking I might sell the 16-35mm to fund the 17-55 so I wouldn't instantly lose the 55-70 gap as the 24-70 would cover it.. I could then try shooting without the 24-70 to see how i get on..

BAH I HATE THE WAY LENSES PLAY WITH MY HEAD

Thanks!
R

[onefivenine]

I'd say IS is only really useful for static objects (except for mode 2 for horizontal panning) so for shooting bands I wouldn't really consider it a factor.
You probably want the fastest possible shutter speed 9 times out of 10. Three stops of IS isn't going to keep the subject still.

Check out your own shooting statistics on this site which analyzes your flickr photos... link. It was posted in a thread here recently.

I'm sure you'll find you use high ISO a lot and slower shutter speeds very little. You'll probably find you don't use the 16-24mm range a lot either...

I'd go for the 70-200mm and if it's a case of sticking to a two lens combo then I'd drop the 16-35mm. You're only losing 8mm at the wide end with the 24-70/70-200 pair, not creating an overlap, and benefitting from the best quality glass/lens build.

I wouldn't dream of getting the 17-55 IS to go along with or instead of the 24-70 for your purposes though.

Just my opinion...

[tomson]

Originally Posted by rapid

Has anyone here made the move from the 16-35/24-70 to the 17-55?

Yep, I did. But I only really shoot weddings so things are a lot more static compared to shooting gigs. That being said, there's no way I'd go back to the 16-35/24-70 now - the 1mm at the wide end isn't missed at all and at the long end I can crop in if need be (plus I always carry a second body with a 70-200 IS).

Image quality wise - there is no noticeable difference between the Ls and the 17-55 (unless you're one of them pixel peeping types) - prints always look stunning. The only downside is the build quality - the 17-55 isn't what you'd call robust - but as long as my images are sharp I don't really care. I have toyed with buying 1 series or 5D bodies (looked at 2 of each earlier this week) but can't help thinking I'd regret losing this lens if I did.

[rapid]

onefivenine - Thanks for the link.. it seems my main ranges are 16mm, 24mm, 35mm and 70mm... so I'm using across the scale.. one thing that is interesting is there's not a whole lot in the 55-70 range, it seems I just max out at 70 when I want the individual shots etc...

In theory the 17-55 looks like it could do the job..

the 24-70 is an awesome lense, but on a 30d its range is 38.4-112mm, 38mm isn't very wide as all, I definately need the wide end that the 16-35mm provides..

The IS isn't going to help stop the action on stage, but its still going to stop my shaking / floor moving etc.. I had to stand right next to 15foot high speakers a few weeks back and the combination of floor moving up and down and vibration from the speakers cant have been helping, I'm sure this is the sort of thing IS could help eliminate..

I agree that the 17-55 isn't perhaps ideal for gigs due to beer/dirt etc.. If it was weather sealed I think I would buy it now, but thats my main worry when spending 500+ .. will it last?

My other alternative is to purchase another body, so I only have 1 lens change to make, perhaps leaving the 70-200 on one body and swapping between the 16-35/24-70 on the other.. I feel this is a bit extreme though..

On a side note, I saw the pigeon detectives pro photographer shooting with a Canon EF 50-200mm f 3.5-4.5 push/pull type zoom which looked so much better for quick zooming etc.. the whole design seems to be better than the current style, although I can imagine dust is a problem with air being sucked in etc.. any thoughts on this oldschool lens? Zoom/Manual focus on one control makes so much sense to me..

[Curious Yellow]

Don't know if you've ruled this out, but maybe you could check which focal length you use the most from your pictures and get a prime that's a close match for it and keep your current lens in addition to it? Usually when I go to gigs I just find a spot and stay put so a single focal length usually covers it, except for when I want to get a close up in which case a zoom would help.

[Banbert]

First off, you will love the 70-200 f2.8 IS sooooooooo much, its such a nice lens, definitely my favourite lens. The bokeh is stunning when its wide open and although its a bit of a lump in terms of weight the build quality because of that is superb.

I also have the 17-55 F2.8 IS and although its currently one of my most used lens (I shoot weddings primarilly but also use this lens as my walk about lens) the build quality is decidely below par for a £700 lens (thats how much they were when I bought mine anyway)

Ive had mine nearly 12 months and shot 20 weddings with it and had a few issues in that time, one of which meant that the lens was actually exchanged by canon. I havent had any issues yet with the replacement lens I received but the first copy I had was sent away via CPS several times for different things (AF just died mid wedding one day, on another occasion the focus just shifted mid wedding so it was back focusing quite badly, IS was also playing up).

I will miss the extra stops that IS gives me but I will probably sell mine part way through this year and get a 16-35 as its replacement.

[Radiohead]

For a crop body I'd go with the 17-55/2.8 but I agree with the build comments. That's where the L's shine. For FF it'd be the 24-70 every time though.