A Fast Lens

canon400d

Mmmm I have quite a few lenses but I do not possess a really fast lens say F2.8. I don't take many indoor shots but when I do what should I go for. I was looking at the 17-55 IS 2.8. I already have the 18-55 and 17-85 with the 400D and 40D. I have also used the canon 60mm macro but I find this is ok for portraits. I was really after something that I can use indoors and outdoors. Would you say the 17-55 IS is ok for either and or. I would really appreciate your help on this one.
Regards
Bob

Candid Arts

The 17-55 2.8 is a great lens, another great option is the 24-70 2.8. Just sort of depends on what focal length(s) you're needing.

The 17-55 has IS which is really nice if you're doing hand holding. But the 24-70 has that little extra reach, and the L glass. The 17-55 however is just as good as any L glass will be. Both lenses are on my list to get.

canon400d

Candid Arts wrote:

The 17-55 2.8 is a great lens, another great option is the 24-70 2.8. Just sort of depends on what focal length(s) you're needing.

The 17-55 has IS which is really nice if you're doing hand holding. But the 24-70 has that little extra reach, and the L glass. The 17-55 however is just as good as any L glass will be. Both lenses are on my list to get.

Thanks Candid Arts can you tell me if I would get any usage of the 17-55 2.8 outdoors. Or is it mainly an indoor lens?
Regards
Bob

Candid Arts

canon400d wrote:

Thanks Candid Arts can you tell me if I would get any usage of the 17-55 2.8 outdoors. Or is it mainly an indoor lens?
Regards
Bob

Depends on what you are doing outdoors. If more landscape, low (er-esque) light, then yes, as it will be sharpest at 5.6, 8, or 11 ish. If you're doing bright lights, and movement that is close to you, then also yes.

If you tend to do more wildlife outdoors in which you need to zoom a lot, then obviously no.

canon400d

Candid Arts wrote:

Depends on what you are doing outdoors. If more landscape, low (er-esque) light, then yes, as it will be sharpest at 5.6, 8, or 11 ish. If you're doing bright lights, and movement that is close to you, then also yes.

If you tend to do more wildlife outdoors in which you need to zoom a lot, then obviously no.

Thanks ever so much for that. I appreciate exactly what you say and I think within certain limits outdoors this lens will suffice at the F.stops you have mentioned. Would you therefore recommend this lens for taking a sunset shot or a walk around lens, or do I have to do with what I have.?
Bob

canon400d

jlw wrote:

One thing you didn't say is WHY you want a really fast lens. If you want to shoot in very low light or create very shallow depth-of-field effects, an f/2.8 lens isn't going to do it. You might want to start out with a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8, both of which will give you dramatically more aperture than anything you've got now. Both have excellent optics and the f/1.8 is relatively bargain-priced; the f/1.4 is merely a great deal.

There's an article on the current Pop Photo website about uses for a fast 50mm lens that might help you decide whether one would be useful to you.

I initially said I don't shoot a lot indoors. Mmmm so from what you are saying the 17-55 2.8 is no where near as good as the 50mm F/1.4. for shooting indoors. I have the cheap version of prime 50mm. Unfortunately it doesn't zoom. I was really thinking of a fast lens for in and outdoors if required. But if this is probably not advisable I will stick with what I have.
Regards
Bob

Candid Arts

canon400d wrote:

Thanks ever so much for that. I appreciate exactly what you say and I think within certain limits outdoors this lens will suffice at the F.stops you have mentioned. Would you therefore recommend this lens for taking a sunset shot or a walk around lens, or do I have to do with what I have.?
Bob

No problem. It's decent for a walk around lens, I really like my 24-105 for a walk around, but for me, I just do too much variance in my shooting where I always need my 10-22, and a 24-70 2.8 would be nice to compliment that, and to finish it off the 70-200 2.8. The 24-105 covers a lot of range, and has a fixed aperture, problem is it's not super fast at f/4. The 17-55 is an amazing lens if you don't need a lot of zoom.

canon400d wrote:

I initially said I don't shoot a lot indoors. Mmmm so from what you are saying the 17-55 2.8 is no where near as good as the 50mm F/1.4. for shooting indoors. I have the cheap version of prime 50mm. Unfortunately it doesn't zoom. I was really thinking of a fast lens for in and outdoors if required. But if this is probably not advisable I will stick with what I have.
Regards
Bob

I have the 50 1.4, and as it is an amazing and amazingly fast lens, it's just a fixed 50mm. And for me just having a 50mm really limits what you can shoot. I use mine for portraits primarily, but do find some use for it else where. It is however a great low light lens, obviously being a 1.4, just limited at 50mm.

My suggestion for any of these would be to go to your local shop, and rent the different lenses you're looking at getting. Walk around with them, do some shooting, and see what works best for what you shoot.

ziggy53

Bob,

The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is a wonderful indoor lens and is very useful outdoors as well. It's an almost perfect lens for any kind of event work, especially used with a flash and flash modifier.

Yes, a lens like the EF 50mm, f1.4 USM lets in 4 times the light when it's used wide open, but it's also more difficult to use wide open and not quite as sharp wide open.

I highly recommend the 17-55mm for its versatility and relative value. Do use it with a flash and modifier for best results.

canon400d

ziggy53 wrote:

Bob,

The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is a wonderful indoor lens and is very useful outdoors as well. It's an almost perfect lens for any kind of event work, especially used with a flash and flash modifier.

Yes, a lens like the EF 50mm, f1.4 USM lets in 4 times the light when it's used wide open, but it's also more difficult to use wide open and not quite as sharp wide open.

I highly recommend the 17-55mm for its versatility and relative value. Do use it with a flash and modifier for best results.

Hi Ziggy I honestly think you have sold the 17-55mm lens to me. Thanks to everyone else who has given me their advice which I truly appreciate.
Regards
Bob

pathfinder

Bob, Tamron makes a nice 17-50 f2.8 without IS, and Sigma makes a similar lens as well. Both are well regarded, and about half the price of the EOS 17-55 f2.8 IS.

I own the EOS 17-55 f2.8 IS and it is an excellent, if large and heavy, optic!

canon400d

pathfinder wrote:

Bob, Tamron makes a nice 17-50 f2.8 without IS, and Sigma makes a similar lens as well. Both are well regarded, and about half the price of the EOS 17-55 f2.8 IS.

I own the EOS 17-55 f2.8 IS and it is an excellent, if large and heavy, optic![/quote

Hi Pathfinder, I have read everything you have said and I feel I must go for the the 17-55 it sounds like a good all rounder so thanks for everything.
Regards
Bob

Scott_Quier

You've gotten a lot of great advice with respect to the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS and some other lenses. Let me throw you some curve balls

• EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS - This is my goto lens for almost all indoor work, epecially events (parties, etc) where light is at a premium. I don't use it so much for studio work (see next item). In terms fo build, this is not an "L" lens. Like many people, I've had to send this lens in to the Canon Service Center to have it fixed. Some have had problems with the IS. My problem was that the zoom mechanism broke. But there's a reason for the $1,000 price tag - the glass is second to very few other lens - the optics are top shelf. I do find this lens quite useful outdoors as well. Oh, BTW, this thing is not as heavy or large as PF is trying to make it out to be. Or maybe, I'm just "spoiled" by the weight an size of the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS
• EF 24-105 f/4L - This is the first lens I pick up for studio work, where I control the light. In the studio, I am, usually, shooting at f/5.6 or smaller so I don't need the f/2.8 provided by the above lens. This lens is also my most often selected lens for just general walking around. Why? Because the optics are freaking awesome!!!! Though I did encounter a series of situations a couple of weeks ago where I was wishing I had brought along my 17-55, the 24mm was just a might too long for some of the shots I wanted to take.
• There may be times when f/2.8 is not fast enough. So, you use something like the EF 50mm f/1.4, which is a whole 2 stops faster than f/2.8. But, there's a price to be paid for that huge aperture - it's very demanding of focus at those apertures. The DOF is sliver thin! You have to get it right! Oh, and I've found that my 50 f/1.4 was a bit off on the focus. It took a bit of AF Microadjustment on my 50D (to counter some front-focusing) to get it right.
• Another lens that is no longer getting quite as much attention is the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. I have yet to find anyone who has this lens and doesn't like/love it. IMHO, it's not suitable for shooting darker events when you don't have a bit of time to play as the lens tends to hunt a bit when the lights go down. But, if you have the time, this lens is hard to beat, especially for the price. The price has fallen a bit over the last year or so (it's $350 at B&H, I bought my for a quite a bit more than that - oh well). I'm not planning on selling mine any time soon - it's a wonderful hunk of glass to have in a kit.

There, I hope I've muddied the waters a bit for you!:lol The thing is, there's not a lens I've mentioned here that I would have any problems recommending. I can't talk to the Tamron 17-50 or the Sigma version of the same as I've never even touched one.

canon400d

pathfinder wrote:

Bob, Tamron makes a nice 17-50 f2.8 without IS, and Sigma makes a similar lens as well. Both are well regarded, and about half the price of the EOS 17-55 f2.8 IS.

I own the EOS 17-55 f2.8 IS and it is an excellent, if large and heavy, optic!

Thanks Pathfinder I will have a look at the Tamron and Sigma. I am a big fan of Canon. I know it is a bit pricey but if you say it is excellent I think I will end up going for the Canon.
Regards
Bob

canon400d

Scott_Quier wrote:

You've gotten a lot of great advice with respect to the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS and some other lenses. Let me throw you some curve balls

• EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS - This is my goto lens for almost all indoor work, epecially events (parties, etc) where light is at a premium. I don't use it so much for studio work (see next item). In terms fo build, this is not an "L" lens. Like many people, I've had to send this lens in to the Canon Service Center to have it fixed. Some have had problems with the IS. My problem was that the zoom mechanism broke. But there's a reason for the $1,000 price tag - the glass is second to very few other lens - the optics are top shelf. I do find this lens quite useful outdoors as well. Oh, BTW, this thing is not as heavy or large as PF is trying to make it out to be. Or maybe, I'm just "spoiled" by the weight an size of the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS
• EF 24-105 f/4L - This is the first lens I pick up for studio work, where I control the light. In the studio, I am, usually, shooting at f/5.6 or smaller so I don't need the f/2.8 provided by the above lens. This lens is also my most often selected lens for just general walking around. Why? Because the optics are freaking awesome!!!! Though I did encounter a series of situations a couple of weeks ago where I was wishing I had brought along my 17-55, the 24mm was just a might too long for some of the shots I wanted to take.
• There may be times when f/2.8 is not fast enough. So, you use something like the EF 50mm f/1.4, which is a whole 2 stops faster than f/2.8. But, there's a price to be paid for that huge aperture - it's very demanding of focus at those apertures. The DOF is sliver thin! You have to get it right! Oh, and I've found that my 50 f/1.4 was a bit off on the focus. It took a bit of AF Microadjustment on my 50D (to counter some front-focusing) to get it right.
• Another lens that is no longer getting quite as much attention is the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. I have yet to find anyone who has this lens and doesn't like/love it. IMHO, it's not suitable for shooting darker events when you don't have a bit of time to play as the lens tends to hunt a bit when the lights go down. But, if you have the time, this lens is hard to beat, especially for the price. The price has fallen a bit over the last year or so (it's $350 at B&H, I bought my for a quite a bit more than that - oh well). I'm not planning on selling mine any time soon - it's a wonderful hunk of glass to have in a kit.

There, I hope I've muddied the waters a bit for you!:lol The thing is, there's not a lens I've mentioned here that I would have any problems recommending. I can't talk to the Tamron 17-50 or the Sigma version of the same as I've never even touched one.

Thanks Scott I really appreciate your sound advice. I think from what you say the Canon 17-55 will be my choice at the end of the day.
Regards
Bob

chrisjohnson

I use the 17-55 and it works great for me. The IS is very helpful for getting more mileage in poor light.

catspaw

jlw wrote:

One thing you didn't say is WHY you want a really fast lens. If you want to shoot in very low light or create very shallow depth-of-field effects, an f/2.8 lens isn't going to do it. You might want to start out with a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8, both of which will give you dramatically more aperture than anything you've got now. Both have excellent optics and the f/1.8 is relatively bargain-priced; the f/1.4 is merely a great deal.

There's an article on the current Pop Photo website about uses for a fast 50mm lens that might help you decide whether one would be useful to you.

What you need/get depends ENTIRELY on what you need it for. A 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 does WONDERFULLY inside, if it gives you what you need. and the 1.8's are priced so very very reasonably.

divamum

pathfinder wrote:

Bob, Tamron makes a nice 17-50 f2.8 without IS, and Sigma makes a similar lens as well. Both are well regarded, and about half the price of the EOS 17-55 f2.8 IS.

I own the EOS 17-55 f2.8 IS and it is an excellent, if large and heavy, optic!

They will have to prise my Tamron 17-50 out of my cold dead hands - I LOVE that lens (ok, so I've never had a Canon 17-55is, but so far, the Tamron is everything I could want, including nice and light and well balanced on my xsi).

Even shooting in the pitch black outdoors the other night (in 20 degree weather), it STILL managed to autofocus accurately when I used a flashlight to shine a spot on the subject. Out of the whole series, I only had one shot which wasn't absolutely in focus (and I think that was the one where I switched it to manual ) I don't know how consistent they are for quality control, but this is for sure a sharp copy, even at maximum aperture.

Btw, I got a screamingly good deal on it via my local Craigslist just after Christmas, picking it up in as-new condition (it was about 2 months old) with all documentation, boxes, cards etc and a pair of the largeish filters it uses (UV and circular polarizer), all for $300. Point here being that it's a great lens that can be found for a great price. I seriously love mine!

divamum

catspaw wrote:

What you need/get depends ENTIRELY on what you need it for. A 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 does WONDERFULLY inside, if it gives you what you need. and the 1.8's are priced so very very reasonably.

50 1.8mm is a super lens, especially for the incredibly low price. I have one, and have used it a lot.

But one should be warned that it is NOT a fast and acccurate autofocus-er in low light. You can get it to work once you learn its quirks, but you do have to figure out how to work with it and sometimes even "trick" it into focusing. FWIW.

For sharpness, it's unbelievable - for a sub-$100 lens, the clarity is kind of mind-blowing.