Should I get EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L ii usm

[ilzho]

Hello: I am looking at purchasing the above lens to replace my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.
I have the 70-200 2.8 L II usm which is my go to lens, but I have heard so many good things about the 24-70 L 2.8 I feel I need to add this and sell the 17-55 that I have.
Any advice is appreciated.

[Waddizzle]

Why?

The 17-55mm range with an APS-C sensor closely approximates the 24-70mm range with a full frame sensor.  Off the top of my head, your effective focal length with the lens will be in the 40-100mm range.  You're practically giving up wide angle shooting.

I cannot advise you on what to do.  I can only ask what improvement do you hope to gain?  

I have an EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens.  I have pondered and rejected the idea of getting that lens.  The lenses that I use the most are 16-35mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, and 70-200mm f/2.8.  And, that is using 2 camera bodies.  I can set an f/2.8 aperture on any of the lenses, so I don't really need a 24-70mm at f/2.8.  I might want the lens, but I really do not need it.

[ilzho]

Yeah I understand that.
I have the 7d Mark II and those lenses in my first post.
When shooting low light concerts, that 17-55 just struggles. My 70-200 is ok. Now I don't have a 5d or anything like that, nor a prime lenses, so I'm looking for a happy medium. Other concert photographers have told me to get it, so I'm just searching for everyone's opinion, good or bad.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ilzho wrote:
Yeah I understand that.
I have the 7d Mark II and those lenses in my first post.
When shooting low light concerts, that 17-55 just struggles. My 70-200 is ok. Now I don't have a 5d or anything like that, nor a prime lenses, so I'm looking for a happy medium. Other concert photographers have told me to get it, so I'm just searching for everyone's opinion, good or bad.

---

I am not turning cartwheels over the low light performance of the 7D2.  It is fantastic at ISO 100, but leaves me wanting by ISO  3200, although post can clean it up quite a bit.  If you using the 17-55mm at f/2.8, then you're not going to get more light using a 24-70mm at f/2.8.  Consider investing in a fast prime, f/1.8 or faster.  

Everyone should have one in their kit, IMHO.  I would recommend 35mm with a 7D2 as starter, to get close to a "normal" angle of view of 50mm.  For concerts, you may want something longer, like 50mm or 85mm.  I use mine primarily for low light conditions when a flash is undesirable.

[ebiggs1]

Sounds like the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens for Canon is for you.

The problem with using primes is they don't zoom.  If you are in a place where you have plenty of room that isn't too much of a problem.  Perhaps a fixed focal range like a studio is OK, too.  But in a place where you are somewhat restricted primes can be difficult.  Although I love the 50mm on a FF and the 35mm on a cropper, I find those focal lengths wanting.  I tend to play with them more than produce work with them. 

The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens is the best zoom lens of this type made.  Period end of story.  It is top of the mark. I wouldn't be with out it. The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM L and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lenses go with me everywhere.  If I have a camera in my hand most likely one of those is on it.

I will say one thing, the biggest difference you will see in the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM L and your EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is build quality.  The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is a very good lens in itself.  Going ot be hard to see real world benefits otherwise.

[TTMartin]

---

@ilzho wrote:
Yeah I understand that.
I have the 7d Mark II and those lenses in my first post.
When shooting low light concerts, that 17-55 just struggles. My 70-200 is ok. Now I don't have a 5d or anything like that, nor a prime lenses, so I'm looking for a happy medium. Other concert photographers have told me to get it, so I'm just searching for everyone's opinion, good or bad.

---

What do you mean by '17-55 just struggles'?

Do you mean it has difficulty focusing? 

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS has the same f/2.8 maximum aperture as the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM so both lenses will perform the same.

At concerts your 70-200 f/2.8 likely performs better, because you are zoomed into where the stage lighting is having an impact on exposure, and a wider angle lens is covering darker areas in addition to the stage lit areas. 

'Other concert photographers have told me to get it, so I'm just searching for everyone's opinion, good or bad.'

Sorry, they don't know what they are talking about. They likely have a full frame camera and couldn't use your EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS so it is not an option to them. But, the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM isn't going to make a bit of difference to you exposurewise. 

[Waddizzle]

---

@ilzho wrote:

 Other concert photographers have told me to get it, so I'm just searching for everyone's opinion, good or bad.

---

I think they other photographers just want to see you spend money.  Replacing one very good f/2.8 lens with another very good f/2.8 lens, which covers most of the same zoom range, forces one to raise the question of diminishing returns.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ilzho wrote:
Hello: I am looking at purchasing the above lens to replace my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.
I have the 70-200 2.8 L II usm which is my go to lens, but I have heard so many good things about the 24-70 L 2.8 I feel I need to add this and sell the 17-55 that I have.
Any advice is appreciated.

---

Unless you're planning to go full-frame, there's no obvious reason to prefer the 24-70 over the 17-55. Except for a possible difference in IQ that you'd be unlikely to notice, most arguments favor the 17-55. It's smaller and lighter, uses a smaller filter, has image stabilization, and is a better fit for the normal focal range of an APS-C camera.

I suppose the 24-70's additional reach at the long end could be construed as an advantage, since it plugs the gap between your 17-55 and your 70-200. But I can't think of any other reason to spend the money. And in that case you wouldn't want to let go of the 17-55.