# General purpose f/2.8 zoom for 80D?



## Duct_Taper (Jun 24, 2018)

Hi all,

Looking for recommendations for a f/2.8 zoom for my 80D. I currently have the 10-18 STM so I'm covered for wide angle stuff, and have the 18-135 STM for use in good light. Also have the 24/40/50 STM and 100/2 USM primes. I have the 24 STM up for sale right now as I just don't tend to use it much.

So far I've been considering the Tamron 17-50 non-VC, the 17-55 IS USM, the Tamron 24-70 G2, or the 24-70L II.

Obviously the 24-70 options are significantly more expensive, but I don't tend to use 24mm or narrower all that often (hence selling the 24 STM) and I would definitely use the 50/55-70 range if it was there. The 'ready for full frame' aspect is a bonus too if/when I upgrade to FF a few years down the road.

I'm looking to get something with good IQ wide open - if I have enough light to be stopped down much I'm probably just using the 18-135.

I've searched and read reviews and there doesn't seem to be a real consensus... the 24-70 II would be the clear winner if it had IS I think but it's also by far the most expensive.

Anyone have experience with one or more of the options?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2018)

I had the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS, and have the EF 24-70/2.8L II. The 17-55/2.8 is a great general-purpose zoom for APS-C. When I used crop DSLRs, I also had the 24-105/4L, but the 24-xx zooms don't give a wide angle on APS-C, which limited their utility for me (I had the EF-S 10-22, but swapping takes time and means losing f/2.8, which is very useful indoors, where a wider FoV is also useful).

I generally advise getting the lens you need today, not the one you might need at some undetermined future time and compromising in the meantime. If you're sure you'll switch to FF in the very near future, a 24-70/2.8 makes more sense. 

I have only briefly used the Tamron 24-70/2.8 G2. The IQ is not quite up to the Canon 24-70 II, but with static subjects the image stabilization can more than make up the difference. The vast majority of my 24-70/2.8 shooting falls in two buckets – family activities where kids are moving around, and travel/architecture where I'm using a tripod. Thus, I find little benefit in IS for that focal range. The other thing to note about the Tamron is that zoom ring rotates backwards (from the perspective of a Canon user; it's the right direction for Nikon shooters). It's something you might get used to, but if you switch lenses frequently you may find yourself missing shots after zooming the wrong way (as I still occasionally do with my Canon 70-300L, which has the focus and zoom ring positions opposite of my other L zooms).

Good luck with your decision!


----------



## slclick (Jun 24, 2018)

I second the 17-xx range for crop. Both Canon and Sigma make great options.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 24, 2018)

How much do you want for the 24mm pancake?

The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is an extremely good lens. I owned one for years and it was great. After a few years it showed a little wear on the manual focus ring, but it was still in great shape otherwise.


----------



## Act444 (Jun 24, 2018)

On an 80D I would hands down recommend the 17-55. It is high-performing even at 2.8. I personally do not like the 24-70 range on a crop-sensor camera - 24 not wide enough and 70 not long enough for true telephoto shots. On top of that you have no IS. However, I got by with the 24-105 on my 60D back when I had it...it was a great outdoor lens on that camera and I loved the reach. 

I had the Tamron 17-50 (VC version) for a while before upgrading to the 17-55...the latter is definitely the superior lens, but it budget is an issue, the Tamron is decent enough for the money (if you get a "good copy" I suppose).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 25, 2018)

I use a 15-85mm on my SL-2 most of the time, for low light, I did something different, a Sigma Art 18-35 f/1.8.
The zoom range is lacking, and 18mm is not as wide as I'd like, but for low light, there is nothing comparable in a zoom.


----------



## jd7 (Jun 25, 2018)

I agree with the others recommending the 17-xx range for crop, and the 17-55/2.8 IS in particular. That said though, it comes down to what you want to use the lens for. For example, if you are particularly looking for a portrait lens, a 24-70 on a crop sensor covers a pretty good range. Anyway, you've said you don't often shoot wider than 24 so a 24-70 might work for you. Personally though, I had a 24-70/2.8 on crop for ages before I got the 17-55 and in retrospect I wish I'd had the 17-55 all along.


----------



## FTb-n (Jun 25, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I generally advise getting the lens you need today, not the one you might need at some undetermined future time and compromising in the meantime. If you're sure you'll switch to FF in the very near future, a 24-70/2.8 makes more sense.


+1
Best advice I was ever given was to never by a lens (or any photo gear) until you have actually experienced a need for it. If you buy lenses for anticipated need, you're likely to build a collection of lenses that gather more dust than images.

The EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM is a great general purpose lens for crop bodies and I highly recommend it. I compare it more closely to the EF 24-105 f4L IS USM on a full frame body. The effective focal range is similar (27-88mm) and the effective depth of field with this lens on the crop body is very close to that of the 24-105 f4 on a FF body.

IS is a key feature of this lens that I like over the non-IS 24-70 f2.8L. On a crop body, IS lets me shoot candids at slower shutter speeds than I would shoot with the 24-70 -- as long as the subject is also slow moving. This can help make up for the 2+ stop advantage that a FF body has over the crop body in high ISO noise. Plus, I love the added creative options with hand-held controlled motion blur of very slow shutter speeds.

I switched to FF bodies a few years ago, but kept this lens and my 7D. I now use this lens on the 7D for a tethered photo booth at events -- and for my daughter to use. On occasions I may also use this lens on an SL2 as a "travel light" kit, but it does dwarf the SL2 a bit.

For FF, I've often been torn between the 24-70 f2.8L II and the 24-105 f4L IS. The 24-70 is a great lens, it's sharp and focuses extremely quickly for sports. But, I often want the 24-105 for it's IS. The 24-105 is great for team photos in poorly lit gyms, available low-light portraits, and controlled motion blur photos. Still, I'd prefer a single 24-70 f2.8L with IS. This site has reported rumors of such a lens in development. At this stage, it isn't something one can plan for. But, if full frame is still a year or more away for you, then who knows. A 24-70 f2.8 with IS might then be available.

I think the 17-55 f2.8 IS will help you get the most from your 80D.


----------



## Duct_Taper (Jun 25, 2018)

Thanks all for the advice - sounds like the 17-55 is the best bet. Any idea on a reasonable price to pay for a good used one? (I'm in Canada). They seem to sell on eBay anywhere between $300 and $600 CAD. Or is it worth paying the premium (about double) for a new one?

LSXPhotog, I have the 24 STM listed on the local classifieds (Ottawa, Canada) for $175 CAD but I'm honestly not really sure what to expect for it.


----------



## FTb-n (Jun 25, 2018)

If you're considering new, consider Canon's refurbished store. Canon is currently offering $80 off the lens new at $800 USD and $704 refurbished. Refurbished items are often virtually new items that can't be sold as new. They have been tested by Canon with any elements replaced as needed. They actually undergo more testing than new items off the assembly line and they come with the full Canon one year warranty. I have had very good luck with lenses and bodies refurbished by Canon and sold through Canon’s store.

https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-s-17-55-f-28-is-usm-refurbished

For used items, I would look at KEH.com, Adorama.com, and BHPhoto.com. I’m personally leery of used lenses and bodies that haven’t been checked professionally. Be sure to check the used policies on these sites so that you understand what they do to test and rate each item. Also checkout their return policies. Simply put, I’d prefer the backing of a reputable dealer when buying used gear.


----------



## Talys (Jun 25, 2018)

I used the EFS 17-55/2.8 from its launch until just a couple of years ago. I got top dollar for it when I sold it. This is a lens that's just fantastic, with shortcomings only in older AF and IS engines and more chromatic aberration than I care for. 

Great size, and everything else, too. I wish Canon would refresh it, as I love my 80D, but that seems pretty unlikely.

The 24-70/2.8 and 4IS are both great lenses, as long as 24 on crop isn't too telephoto for you. But, the 24-70/2.8 is also much more expensive than the EFS 17-55/2.8.


----------



## the.unkle.george (Jun 26, 2018)

The Canon 17-55mm is better, but the Sigma OS and VC versions can be found on CL etc for $200 - $250. They're both very good value for the money and I'd highly recommend one of these over the various more expensive 24-70mm options.

Full frame lenses on APS-C bodies are heavier, more expensive, and not as sharp. I replaced my Sigma 17-50mm OS with a Tamron 24-70mm VC so I could also use it on a Canon 6d. According to DXO Mark it should have been sharper, but the difference was small to none for $1k more.


----------



## snappy604 (Jun 26, 2018)

add me to the chorus on the 17-55mm 2.8 IS on the 80D.. I've used it on my 40d, 7D and now 80D... for crop it's the workhorse lens.


----------



## slclick (Jun 26, 2018)

The Tammy 17-50 VC is no slouch either.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Jun 26, 2018)

My general purpose lens for crop is the Sigma 18-35mm f/1,8 as it covers the effective common focal length of ~28mm, ~35mm and 50mm.

Should you get a FF body, the crop lens can still be used for say 4K video where there is a crop....


----------



## pwp (Jun 26, 2018)

Another vote for the fabulous EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. If you're locked into APS-C, this is a must-have lens.

-pw


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 26, 2018)

Duct_Taper said:


> Thanks all for the advice - sounds like the 17-55 is the best bet. Any idea on a reasonable price to pay for a good used one? (I'm in Canada). They seem to sell on eBay anywhere between $300 and $600 CAD. Or is it worth paying the premium (about double) for a new one?
> 
> LSXPhotog, I have the 24 STM listed on the local classifieds (Ottawa, Canada) for $175 CAD but I'm honestly not really sure what to expect for it.


Since you are in Canada, you can't buy on the Canon refurbished store, so buy one used, locally if possible. When you do that, its likely that you will get a lens that is decentered or needs cleaning. If you can find one that was just checked by Canon, you are ok, otherwise, include a trip to Canon for cleaning and alignment in the used price. When you add the cost of sending the lens to Mississauga, it may be a better deal to buy new.
Another place to buy used is from the Fred Miranda site. Since the sellers are photographers, you can usually depend on their description more than on ebay.

If buying on ebay, or from Fred Miranda, use a credit card. (I'm assuming that Canadian Credit cards also have protections as in USA. Otherwise, Paypal guarantees transactions. If you pay thru Paypal, use a credit card for the total purchase.
If you purchase from a local advertisement using cash, don't over pay, the lens may or may not be decentered, it takes some testing to tell.


----------



## Talys (Jun 26, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Duct_Taper said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks all for the advice - sounds like the 17-55 is the best bet. Any idea on a reasonable price to pay for a good used one? (I'm in Canada). They seem to sell on eBay anywhere between $300 and $600 CAD. Or is it worth paying the premium (about double) for a new one?
> ...



You can also buy it from Canon and have it sent to a package receiving place just across the border, and drive over to pick it up. They are very common in border towns; I use them all the time!


----------



## NancyP (Jun 26, 2018)

I will say that the EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 is a good landscape and travel lens if you don't absolutely need f/2.8. And I use the 24 STM as a lightweight "just in case" lens when out shooting birds. Because my preferred landscape focal length is around 35mm full frame equivalent, the 24 (on APS-C) or 40 (on FF) STMs are great. Of course, I am not shooting wide open for landscape....


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 26, 2018)

Forget EFS. EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Jun 27, 2018)

For wide stuff, seriously consider the Tokina 11-20/2.8.


----------



## Steve Dmark2 (Jun 27, 2018)

Hello,
I can highly recommend the Sigma 17-50 EX 2.8 lens.
This is my always on lens, it can be used for almost everything:

Family shootings, weddings, landscape, sports...
(In case of sports I shot my brothers team at handball, in a poorly lighted gym.)

For 300€, it is a lot of lens!
The only thing which is a pain is video recording, at least if you record audio close to the lens because of the quite noisy autofocus.
For this I bought the 100€ 18-55 STM lens. However it is not as sharp and versitale as the Sigma.

Cheers,

Stefan


----------

