Get Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 to replace 35mm Prime?

[izt_is]

Guys I want to ask, how does the quality and sharpness of image compare between the Canon 35mm f/2 IS and the Canon 17-35mm f/2.8 IS?

 

I am talking about the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens. - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EW8074/ref=s9_simh_gw_p421_d0_i2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=desktop-1&pf_rd_r=19QW1M2YDE7WKQ0G32GS&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=1970559082&pf_rd_i=desktop

 

I currently have the 35mm Prime, but was thinking of getting the 17-55mm as the f/2.8 is really attractive especially at 17mm for low light photography. 

 

However cost is a concern, and if the image quality cannot compare to the 35mm prime, then I will have to rethink my decision.

 

I just got my 70-D so that's APS-C 6 months ago and I love it so I definitely won't be changing that anytime soon. I'm still an amateur anyway

 

Now I spoke to amazon customer service and my 35mm f/2 IS is barely 2 months old and they are willing to refund me the full cost which means I need to top about about 100Euros to get the 17-55mm f/2.8. Now this is definitely very attractive to me.

 

**as mentioned in earlier posts, I also have a Canon 10-18mm which i got recently as a present. 

 

To be fair I like the idea of not having to change my lenses with the 17-55mm while having the f/2.8 at all focal lengths. But I don't know it's really costly.

 

I use my camera 95% for vacations and 5% for pictures of my 1/6 figures and hobby modelling i.e. Macro work. 

 

Right now, I just don't know if I will regret giving back the prime and going for the 17-55mm f/2.8 but losing image quality in the process...

 

What do I do?

 

Is it worth it? Dissuade me maybe?

 

P.S. I tend to only buy canon for now because I really like the in-camera lens correction profiles. I don't shoot RAW yet and never post-process my photos. 

 

Thanks guys. Love. 

 

 

[Flight1sim]

Personally i'd go with the 17-55mm, just because i think it's an epic lens. 

Are you doing any video at all?

 If yes, get the lens

If no, just use ur 35mm

[bob345]

Not sure if you have seen the sigma 18-35 f1.8, but that may be a good option if you dont need the extra reach of the 17-55. No image stabilization, but i think it is worth the tradeoff to get the widest aperture wide angle zoom on the market. It is also only meant for aps-c cameras, so that is another thing to keep in mind.   http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_5?url=search-alias%3Delectronics&field-keywords=sigma%2018-35mm%20f1.8%20dc%20hsm&sprefix=sigma%2Celectronics%2C157

 

@izt_is

[Bsmith]

The image quality will be roughly the same since 17-55mm isn't such a large spectrum, i would go for it since it quite a bless not having to switch continiously, altough there might be a little degradtion/chromatic abdoration, but the difference probarlly is minimal(cant google search for test on phone)

[Ex14]

the suggestion for the sigma lens is really good one. do consider.

[Victorious Secret]

Sigma lenses over the Canons at this point in time, the 17-55 is an alright lens but I wouldn't buy it. 

Seriously, look at Sigmas 35mm, its an amazing thing. Actually, every single Sigma ART lens goes against Canon L lenses and basically wins, they are seriously kicking ass right now. 

[cookiesfordays]

Another vote for the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 lens, it really is amazing and there'e nothing else like it out there.

[Williamchan87]

If you want low light, the 17-55 f2.8 won't help. either go for a Sigma 18-35mm 1.8, or get a faster prime like nifty fifty 50mm1.8, and look for it at $50USD