L series lenses

L series = better contrast, color, bokeh, build quality and image quality. Less lens flare. The 24-70L is my workhorse wedding lens on a full frame 1Ds3 and 1.3 crop 1D3. The 50mm 1.2 that you mention IS an "L" lens.

EF-s 17-55/2.8 IS is better than some "L" lenses. It's not "L" lens because it's EF-s and won't fit full frame bodies. It's also not sealed but it's as good as "L" lenses and even better than some of them. EF 28-70/2.8 is the old L lens and it was replaced by 24-70/2.8 - I think that neither is going to be wide enough on 1,6x sensor camera. Instead of 17-55 and 50/1.2 I'd buy 17-55 and something longer, e.g. one of 70-200 lenses.

It is a hard lesson to learn.

You have to use a few L lenses to see the difference. You won't get it on just one picture.

Forget the camera body - invest in the lens - invest in the glass!

I'm a convert!

You must have a different opinion about what "much better" and "sufficiently superior" actually means.

Of course, those comparison as a generalisation are completely worthless. If you compare 2 descret lenses, like the EFS17-55 IS and the EF 28-70L, you might or might not find optical differences. The L is certainly better build. But the most important thing is, the latter will not give you any wide, so the comparison is only of limited use ... at least if you need wide.

-- "L series = better contrast, color, bokeh, build quality and image quality."

And for statements like this ... in this general form ... nonsense.

Just take a lens like the EF 85/1.8 USM ... a non-L by the way ... there is hardly any L lens that beats it ... and of course EF 85/1.2L they'll all shout ... just compare AF-speed.

Compare two lenses with an intended use in mind makes sense. Just blindly buying lenses because they have an L-tag doesn't.

I've read quite a few reviews that say the 17-55/2.8 IS has equal or better image quality than the 24-70 2.8 L (and the 24-105 L), Also, many folks on these forums who have both lenses seem to agree. Yet many people still make the statement that one or both of these L lenses have better image quality than the 17-55. Most of these statements seem to be based on the fact that an "L" lens is automatically superior to an non "L" lens. Are there any tests or reviews that actually back the statement that either of these Ls have better IQ than the 17-55,, 2.8 ?

G`day Melinda, did you read this review

(link)

Now look at their size, then go to the canon site and look at the specs, take in their dimemtions and weight, then ask yourself, can I hold that weight, body lens and flash, for even just a short 3~4 hour event?, I suggest do yourself a favour and go to a shop and hold them, make sure as well hold one handed, believe me there are times you`ll have to. The 24 70 is a lovely lens on FF, the 17 55 is like a FOV 28 80 on x1.6, a better tool IMO :) I use 24 70 but have done many wedding with tamron 17 50 as I don`t use IS but YMMV..

my 85 f 1.8 is a very good lens, but to say that hardly any L lens beats it is just plain wrong. My 135 will run circles around it, my 70-200 L f/2.8 non is, will match it and have better IQ, the 85 L, no comparison to the two, the 85 f/1.8 is a very good lens, but there is a difference between L lens and the others, besides weather sealing. Having stated the above for the price difference the 85 f/1.8 is a very good buy. The L lens keep their value if you ever decide to sell them, I have only sold one that is the 17-40 L as the wide primes are better then zoom especially in the wide range because of the distortion.

I have a 40D and use bought the 17-55/2.8 recently and I really notice a difference to other lenses I have used. It is very sharp. The only other lens I have that when I look at my shots and think, "damn, that looks good", is the 70-200 2.8L It seems to be L quality optics but marketing does not want to have an L for anything other than a full frame sensor.

Shawn

Back to yout original question: The 17-40L is a very good lens, but (assuming yo use a APS-C camera) the 17-55 is the better choice for weddings. It is at least equally sharp and its zoom range is much more useful for this purpose. It is more adequate for head and shoulders portraits and still wide enough for group shots.. The f 2.8 will give you more background blur if needed. For more blur and reach I would add in a 85mm prime.

Considering you have a crop body I'd say the 17-55/2.8 IS would be pretty perfect for weddings. (Plenty wide, plenty fast, longish and good IQ.)

I'd hesitate to add the 50/1.2 though, it's faster than the 17-55, that's true however during a wedding I'd think you will want something longer than the two lenses you mention.

A strong case could be made for a 70-200/2.8 (with or without IS), a 135/2 or even a 200/2.

Price/performance wise I'd bet the 135/2 but as I'm not wedding photog I might not be the best source.

Kind regards, Matthijs.

-- "My 135 will run circles around it"

Manuel, this is exaclty why generalisations are nonsense. The 135/2L is 135mm ... how can it beat the 85/1.8 at 85mm? ... you're comparing apples with pears. If you want 85mm you need either a fixed focal near to that, or a zoom that covers the range, but not a 135. Comparing lenses just by their build quality or by their sharpness isn't going to help you ... How do you take that indoor portrait with the 135mm? If we forget about what the intended use is for a lens, those comparisions are purely theoretical.

And that is my main worry with the statement in the original post to look for a 28-70 instead of a 17-55.

For the $$ go with the L. I really don't think you can go wrong with any of the L series lenses especially since they are basically the same price as the 17-55.

I know a lot of photographers ( mostly wedding ) and I most always see L's never a 17-55. Now not saying the 17-55 is bad but when I tested them out I went with the L lens ( 24-105)

The only downside is you will need something wider no matter which one you choose which bothered me at first but now I am very happy with my choice.

good luck

This is comparing apples with oranges.

L lenses are designed primarily for use on full-frame digital and 35mm SLRS.

EF-s lenses are not.

You maybe happy with your xxD camera just now, but you have the option of using either EF or EF-s lenses. If you spend a lot of money on EF-s lenses then you may just be shooting yourself in the foot when you come to change camera.

By using EF mount lenses you keep your options open. By using EFs you limit them.

I use a 17-40mm f4L & 200mm f2.8 L II on a full frame film and APS-C body, different type of lens on each body, but useful & well behaved on both. A lot cheaper than a 16-35 f2.8 and on a par in terms of quality.

The 17-40 is very well sealed and solid in the hand in a way than canons lower grade lenses (I have many original style EF lenses 28 f2.8, 135 f2.8 etc) aren't and certainly in way that the EF-s lenses aren't.

I don't wish to snipe but, if you are a pro, why are you using an APS-C format DSLR anyway?

I have a 70-200 2.8L lens that I bought in 1996. It survived a few hundred weddings, seven years shooting for a newspaper, sports in the rain and mud, being dropped on a concrete sidewalk. Some twelve years later it is still working as well as the day I bought it. If you are serious about weddings and high volume work I think L lenses are by far the best investment for extended and rugged use. I will not buy a newer one until this lens wears out which it shows no signs of doing. By the way, it still looks as good as new. You can argue about image all you want. I don't care as long as the lens produces salable and enlargable images. I found 28mm or the equvilent in medium format as wide as I ever needed for weddings. If you have a 1.6 crop body it is clearly not wide enough. I have a 17-40 f4L that works fine for that and that produces salable and enlargable images. It is certainly good enough for weddings where I think the equivilent of 28 mm is essential for groups.

Manuel -- how about the 5D with a 135mm prime compared to a 40D with the 85 1.8?

Otherwise, even with this, you are comparing apples and oranges. I have the 85 and the 70-200 and for sure the 85 blows away the L at wide-open f/1.8 ! I can say though I've not compared them at f/2.8 yet.

Have you?

In my opinion you have to use some L class lenses to feel the difference. Try to feel with your hand the mechanical tolerances of L class lenses. Most of these lenses can survive in very bad weather (yes, weather is an important factor in photography, sometimes). L is not just for prestige (IMHO).

Ken, I have a full frame not much difference between the 85 on a 1.6 and a 135, on a full frame, and who says that portraits have to be done indoors and some indoors are very big, his statement was that there are hardly any L lens that beat it. I am sure that the f/1.8 will beat the f/2.8 at 1.8, cause no such animal on the 70-200. But at 2.8 or any thing else my 70-200 f/2.8 will do better, including on a crop camera. I did not mention the 24-105 L but that lens serves many other uses. I have taken images (same) using the the 135L, 70-200l, 85 f/1.8, and the 50 f/1.4, the the 135 l in my subjective eyes was first followed by the 70-200, the 85 f/1.8 and the 50/1.4 used those four lens. I also have the 24-70 which is really the one I use for events and consider that the work horse, the tamron 28-75 which is my preferred lens for fun stuff, if it is an outside event the 70-200 is the one that I use. In fact the 85 f/1.8 is one of the lens that I plan to sell in the future for lack of use. I use the 24 L f/1.4 for group photos and occassionaly my 20 mm canon f/2.8, and I prefer the Tokina 17 mm for architecture.

Ken, I want to add one thing when I first started in photography which was not too long ago, sharp seemed to mean every thing, and it is when I am doing bugs, birds, buildings, etc. but when doing those darn humans sharp sometimes is not good, have not run across a lot of people with perfect skin, especially when they start getting old like me, or when they are young and have all all those red bumps in their faces, the 85 f/1.8 is slightly sharper then the 70-200 at center but not at the corners and the color contrast on the 70-200 is better as is the bokeh.

"However the Canon guy told me the 'L' series would be much better and I should consider the 28-70. Regardless of the difference in focal length does anyone have an opinion on the 'L' series lenses and if they think they are sufficiently superior than the other lenses?"

Does this mean the "Canon guy" would recommend a 45-112mm focal length range as being "much better" for your particular use if you used a full-frame body. Of course not - they don't even make a lens that covers a range like that.

I think his advice is misleading and possibly misguided - I have to wonder if he understood that you use a cropped sensor body. If the 24- 70 is a good wedding lens for 35mm SLR or full frame DSLR photography - and many people believe that it is a core lens for this purpose - then a lens providing comparable coverage and functionality on a 1.6x cropped sensor body would be a 15-44mm f/2.8 lens, since that focal length range provides that same angle of view coverage on the crop body.

The EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the lens that comes closest. But it isn't an L lens, right? So what. The real question is not "does the lens have a red ring and the letter 'L' on the barrel?" The real questions are: does it provide the angle of view coverage I need? does it provide the aperture range I need? does it provide the image quality I need? is the construction of the lens sufficient that I can trust it? does it provide other features that are important to me in my type of shooting?

(For perspective, keep a few other facts in mind. First, not all Canon so-called professional lenses are L lenses. My favorite example: two of the three T/S lenses are not L lenses. Second, there are quite a few excellent non-L primes that are used regularly by folks doing the kind of work you describe.)

The EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS seems to hit all of these points for your particular use. It provides the closest equivalent to the angle of view coverage that the 24-70 would provide on full frame - not quite as wide but a bit longer. It also goes to f/2.8. Reports and test results (which I must rely on since I don't own the lens, being a full-frame shooter) clearly indicate that it is a great optical performer, producing IQ results that meet or exceed what you would get from comparable L lenses. While the construction is not identical to that of L lenses, it is not a poorly constructed lens at all. And it adds image stabilization to the mix.

I have to say that if Canon put a red ring on the lens and added a letter "L" to it, you would probably have no doubts about it at all. ;-)

Dan

I like both the 17-55mm and the 24-70mm but, I need a wide lens to go along with the 24-70mm. The 17-55mm and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (for weddings) would be a very nice pair.

I don't shoot weddings any longer and I use the 17-55mm in conjunction with a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens as my go-to lens combination on 30D and 40D bodies. I love the focal range of those two lenses for all-around shooting. I chose the f/4L IS model because it is lighter and smaller however, if I were to shoot weddings, I'd want the f/2.8L IS model.

The image quality of my 17-55mm ranks right up there with the 24-70mm f/2.8L and the IS gives me an extra advantage.

Hi Melinda,

If you are using a crop sensor camera (40D, etc.) the 17-55/2.8 will be great.

In fact, you have to be using a crop sensor camera if you're even considering an EF-S lens like that, right?

I'd have to qualify this just a little by saying that if also depends on what other lenses you already have. For example, it would pair up nicely with a 70-200/2.8 IS (which is a big, heavy lens).

If you are using or planning to use a full frame body, then you might instead choose the 24-70/2.8L. (I think you are asking about the current 24-70, not the older 28-70, right?) I have and use this lens and can assure you it will also work quite well on a crop sensor cameras, just that it's not very wide after the crop effect and in all likelihood you'll need another, wider lens to compliment it. With a full frame camera, you might choose a 135/2 to compliment the zoom, although a 70-200/2.8 IS could serve as well.

I am not very sure about the 50/1.2L. Personally, if using a crop sensor camera, and possibly even on full frame, I'd go for the 50/1.4 instead. Either are fine portrait lenses on crop sensor. AF of the f1.4 is a bit faster than the L, and depth of field can still be held quite shallow, but not as extreme and critical as the f1.2 wide open. Not that the 50/1.2 isn't a fantastic lens... it is. But, it might be overkill. At the very least, I'd suggest you rent one and work with it a bit, before buying.

In fact, on a full frame camera, instead of a 50mm I think I'd be more inclined to get an 85mm. Here again, there are mid-level f1.8 and premium f1.2 versions to choose between. Me, I'm happy with the f1.8. Again, try before you buy into the f1.2.

For crop sensor cameras, the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 are my "dream team" portrait lenses. I'd not be able to choose one over the other. They serve different purposes.

I also use the 28/1.8 for wider, group shots or environmental portraits. It's a "slightly wide" normal lens on a crop sensor camera.

On full frame, I would probably opt for the 35/1.4L, instead.

I love the L-Series quality and all, but I'm not sold on it as a necessity. A number of my lenses in my Canon kit are L's... but quite a few aren't, too. I get the lens I need to best do the job. The red stripe doesn't come into consideration at all.... In some cases, the build quality and sealing of L-Series has been an important factor to me: 24-70 and 70-200/2.8 in particular. In other cases, L-Series are simply the only Canon options: 300/2.8, 500/4, 24mm Tilt Shft, 180mm macro.

There are some good third party lenses to consider, too. I'd never rule them out, either, if they fit the job, do it well and are a good value. In particular, Sigma 30/1.4 and 50/1.4 might be options for you to think about.

Let me state an important point again:

If you stick to the EF mount you keep your options open for the future.

If you buy an EFs mount you limit your options.

Any constant f2.8 zoom is not going to be cheap, so it will be a factor when you are deciding on your next body (in this day and age lenses outlast bodies easily, not a quality issue, more a technology issue)

If you fancy a 5 or a 1 series then your expensive EFs lens isn't going to fit. So do you sell the lens off for a fraction of what you paid or do you stick to canons consumer range?

This comment is apart from any quality discussion. Canon make many fine EFs, EF and L lenses. I can use a 20 year old EF lens on my gear, but when i buy a full frame digital at least two of my very new EFs lenses are on ebay.

Consider this point carefully before you spend a lot of money on an EFs lens.

"If you stick to the EF mount you keep your options open for the future.

If you buy an EFs mount you limit your options."

It is not quite that simple. There are trade-offs with almost any lens choice, and they tend to cut both ways.

You may actually _expand_ your options on the cropped sensor body you actually use now by choosing the EFS option. No L lens, as fine as they are, provides quite the same feature set as EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens in a comparable focal length range. If you _plan_ to switch to full frame in the very near term then picking the lens for FF makes sense. If you don't have short term plans to do this, there are significant upsides to selecting the lens that optimizes performance on the body you do use.

And you don't exactly lose the value of the EFS lens when/if you switch to full frame. For one thing, there is a quite decent chance that you'll keep the cropped sensor body for use as a second or backup body - and there are multiple good reasons for doing this. Secondly, if you do decide to forego the cropped sensor body completely you can still sell the used EFS lens, either with or without the body. While it is true that you will not get the same price you originally paid for it - unless you shop carefully and buy a used copy now - the depreciation is a reasonable cost for having the lens that lets you do your best work while you use the cropped sensor body.

To counter the "limit your options" argument, one could make a case that you also limit your photographic options with the cropped sensor body if you choose less than optimal lenses for it, betting that someday you may have the right camera for those lenses.

A good middle ground might be to get and EFS lens or lenses for the current body where such lenses provide more/better functionality with the current body, and augment them with EF lenses that can fill a spot in your kit both now and in the future. For example, combining the EFS 17-55 with a 70-200 L could be such a pairing, as could augmenting the 17-55 with some longer large aperture primes.

Dan

the 17-55 is one of canon's best normal zooms (i believe it is the best one). highly usable at f2.8 and scary-sharp from f4 on. it's not an L because canon does not designate any ef-s lenses as such. 17-55 is sharp, has very high contrast, with very bright clean color, and a contemporary color palette.

(one of canon's other sharpest lenses is also an ef-s -- the 60mm macro. this lens can produce some of the most pleasing portraits.)

the 'canon guy' was parroting the company line and probably couldn't handle a camera in the field if he had to. some L lenses are very good, others are way overpriced and need a technological update. a few non-L lenses are among the best money can buy

The difference between 17mm and 28mm is ENORMOUS. I can't believe anyone would even compare these two lenses. Basically that tells me the Canon guy is a low-grade moron whose opinion can be safely ignored.

The 17-55/EF-S is not an "L" lens because it is built to the quality of 28-135/IS and not the 24-70/2.8L.

I am no longer convinced of the need to maintain Full Frame compatibility. The 5D was an awesome camera for its day. . .back in 2005. . . and I am frankly shocked that it's replacement did not come out this week. Since the 5D was introduced, we have had the 30D, XTI, 40D, XSI and now 50D. The feature set on the 5D is frankly a bit stale. Sure. . .the 5D has a good sensor.. ..but come on now. . .there have been some real advances in the prosumer camera arena. Isn't the 5D a Digic II camera? At this point. . .I question if it ever will be updated.

Having said that. . .I would not recommend the 17-55/2.8. Reasons;

1) For portraits. . .F2.8 is not fast. You want a F1.8 or fast prime.

2) For general work around the room. . .you do not need F2.8. . you probably will want F4.0 or F5.6.

With that in mind, my ideal wedding kit would be a 10-22/EF-S; 24-105/IS; 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 (or 85/1.2 if the budget allows)

Just this past week, Chuck Westfall commented in an interview that he expects more full frame offerings this Fall. As sensor technology has matured, the price of full frame sensors is dropping. The writing is on the wall - there will be many more full frame sensor bodies next year at this time than there are now.

I'd be a bit nervous right now if I had an arsenal of crop sensor lenses in my kit. Just like the price of film bodies has plummeted due to technology advances, the hybrid crop-sensor lenses are a next likely victim of advances in technology that will make crop sensor cameras collectors' items.

I like what G Dan said. The only thing I'll add is that I don't see any difference in image quality between the 17-55 on a 40D and the 24-105L on a 5D. I own and regularly use these pairings.

If you can afford get the L series. As you do more and more pro work, customers have the expectation you buy nothing but the best. I started out with EF lenses, as I got more and more into it, I only have one EF lens, the rest are L series. You really can't go wrong with them.

It also depends on your shooting style. Don't spend more than what you need. Buy a lens that will you give you the best all around focul length and as you build your business, get more. I started outFor example, I do a lot of flash photography, F4 will do me fine and it is several hundred cheaper. 17-40 F4L, 24-105 F4L, and 70-200 F4L

Nothing wrong with the EF lens at all, we all started somewhere and somehow.

Guys have this dichotomy because the 17-55 is overpriced meaning one has to pay l prices for a plastic lens. If I spend a grand on a lens I want it built like a tank.

If you are staying with a cropped sensor camera, then I would shoot the 17-55 2.8. I usually push for the "L" lenses, but on a cropped sensor camera you only "take out" the center of the picture, and so the corners and edges are not so critical. More precisely, they will look fine with either type of lens on the cropped sensor camera.

Still, have you thought about the 5D? (I can't help myself.)

--Lannie

"As you do more and more pro work, customers have the expectation you buy nothing but the best."

In the vast majority of cases - and most certainly in the wedding work that the OP asked about - the customer has no clue whether you are using an L lens or a plastic drainpipe, and they wouldn't care if they did.

And I think that most customer's important expectation is that you _produce_ nothing but the best - and about this they will have an opinion.

Dan

"In the vast majority of cases - and most certainly in the wedding work that the OP asked about - the customer has no clue whether you are using an L lens or a plastic drainpipe, and they wouldn't care if they did."

It all depends where your market it is. As DSLRs and accessories prices drop, more and more people will be a to afford them. It is not uncommon here for customers and clients to know your equiptment. On one wedding, we had one guest with a 5D with a 28-70 L and another with a Mark II with a 24-105 L.

Consumer and customers are more educated then ever these days.

Melinda, I have the 17-55 F2.8 IS, 24-105 F4L, and have used the 24-70 F2.8IS L. All give excellent image quality. I use the 17-55 F2.8 IS lens 70-80 percent of the time for the following reasons: 1) I use a 40D - with the crop factor of 1.6, the 24-70 and 24-105 are simply not wide enough. 2) The F2.8 and IS comes in very useful in dark churches, and low light conditions when you prefer not to use flash or when it is plainly not allowed. 3) The image quality is as good as the other 2 L lenses.

My advise is that if you can only take 2 lenses, then you drop the 50 1.2L and get the 70-200 F2.8L IS, because your current range of 17-55 may not be enough for shooting close-ups from a distance, and you need the 2.8 aperture and IS to help you in low light conditions.

If you really must go L, then wait for a month or 2, rumour is that Canon is going to come up with a 24-70 F2.8 IS lens...but then you'd still not be wide enough, so I'd still recommend that you go for the 17-55 F2.8 IS lens. It's a fantastic lens with great contrast and sharpness.

I'm with Chris Yeo on this one: I own the 17-55/2.8 IS, the 24-105/4L IS, and the 24-70/2.8L, along with a pair of 40D bodies. I got the two L lenses at great prices second hand, and expect to pick up the 5D replacement (if Canon ever releases it!) if anyone is wondering why I have all three. I use the 17-55/2.8 IS the overwhelming majority of the time, as most of my work is low light, handheld stuff. The optical quality of this lens is very good. The IS makes the lens incredibly useful. I regularly shoot with it as slow as 1/15th. The 24-70/2.8 isn't wide enough on a 1.6x crop camera, and lacks IS, so it can't be handheld at slow shutter speeds. The 24-105 isn't wide enough by itself, and is too slow at f/4. I use it outdoors at political rallies, etc, where it is very useful indeed.

Forget the argument amount "limiting yourself" if you buy EF-S lenses. You can sell these lenses with ease anytime, if you move exclusively to full-frame sensor camera bodies. There are hordes of xxD and Rebel owners out there in need of good lenses. The market isn't going to disappear anytime soon. In the meantime, you have the lens you really need for the camera body you are using now.

I haven't seen any rumors about a 24-70/2.8 IS, but I'd buy one in a heartbeat, especially for use on a full frame sensor. I worry about the lack of a replacement for the 17-55/2.8 IS in the full-frame lineup now. Canon really ought to put IS in all the fast primes, too. Why buy a 135/2L for low-light photography, if you can't hand hold it below 1/125th?

-- "But at 2.8 or any thing else my 70-200 f/2.8 will do better"

May be not ...

(link)

My choice would be the 17-40 f4L (on the crop body you can shoot wide open) a 50mm f1.8 for solo couple portraiture, and then the 70-200 L, probably the f4 IS L, optically as good as the f2.8 and a chunk of wedge cheaper. The difference would get you a 580 EX II easily.

Shooting RAW will help you pull back any underexposure should you need to shoot at very low isos.

And they are all EF lenses (yawn) that will work on any EOS camera made now, in the past and in the future.

Thats my choice, if you are hell bent on a very expensive consumer EFs lens then so be it.

Have we confused you now? Notice the broad spread of opinion. The 17-55 IS is highly rated, and unless you will definitely be moving to full frame I would probably go for that one. The IS with the newer 17-55 will be quite valuable in low light settings. I have that older 28-70 2.8 and it is a good lens as well, though I doubt it would be possible to distinguish these two on the basis of image quality in practical use. The currently available 24-70 is said to be marginally better from an optical quality perspective. I would favour the 50 1.4 or 1.8 over the much more expensive 1.2.

No one has mentioned the body. With the new bodies capable of pushing ISO to extreme limits, I think we are in for a phase shift in the next couple of years. Wtih current bodies, fast glass is really important, and so for example I am a real fan of the faster 70-200 2.8 IS. As new sensor technology allows one to push limits, the importance of faster lenses is a little less dramatic (still better for bokeh but not so critical).

Dave

Rainer, that is the center, post the corner and a real photo and compare, at center the 85 f/1.8 is sharper, but the drop of to the corners is farily large in sharpness, whereas the 70-200 the center and corners are almost the same, but have to look at a real world photo, compare iq and bokeh. In portaits, I prefer not to crop especially with head shots and the focus is not in the center as the person is to one side or the other, the sharpness will be at the center where it is not where I would want it.

I strongly suggest going to a camera store and trying them all out.

Bring your camera and test out all the lenses you are considering. Take some shots at different FL's and exposures go home and see how they look.

Here you will get lots of good advice but people all have different styles and expectations so what may work for some may not work for you.

"I strongly suggest going to a camera store and trying them all out"

Great advise..See if there is a camera store in your area that you can rent lenses from.

You wont need to rent them, they should allow you to test them out in the store.

I bought the 17-55 f2.8 because I needed a fairly wide lens that was fast and had IS. I also bought it to shoot weddings. Wish it was a little longer. Compared to the other four "L" lens I have owned, it is only about on par with the 24-105 in build but lacks the sealing. It is, however well built in its own right and the IQ is right there with any other similar "L" zoom lens....period.

I placed it side by side with my 24-105, and it was scarey how similar they were. Infact the only real differance you can see is how the zoom ring is designed. The ring its self on the 17-55 feels cheaper, however it is more user friendly because it is bigger (wider) and is infront of the focus ring. Most "L" lens put the focus ring out front.

The 24-70 is a mighty fine lens indeed and a staple for many with good reason. It would serve you very well and would be a good investment. However with it you would loose the wider angle and IS.

Bottom line, The 17-55 f2.8 is a great lens that would serve you well. Assumeing you need a wide angle f2.8 zoom with IS.

Jason

-- "Rainer, that is the center, post the corner"

No, its not only the center ... its the border as well ...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx

... the upper third is the center, the middle part is near border ... the lower part is near corner.

I have a feeling Melinda ran away screaming after reading the responses here :-)

that's birds for you, job done, wheres my pipe?

`L`coholism can be intimadating, as I mentioned before, you need to handle these lenses so as to feel what is right to YOU. But please let us know your decision and more importantly for many who benefit from the forum, let us know the results of your decision

Good luck :)

Melinda - Go with L glass all the way - I have started shooting weddings with another photographer who did not have L glass - my photos were superior to hers in color, clarity and sharpness. We really noticed it when we were shooting some of the same shots from different angles - she is now shooting with L glass - But I warn you - once you go with L glass you will never turn back so get your pocket book ready... it's worth every dime you put into them - I think the only exception to this would be the 50mm 1.4 vs the 50mm 1.2L - I went with the 1.4 because I just couldn't see the difference - rent the lens before you buy it... good luck - sorry if we exploded your brain with data... lots of L geeks on this thread

Francie, just as a matter of interest, what were the lenses that the other photographer use?

cheers