Which lens...or both?

Candid Arts

Ok, so I currently have the Canon 24-104 f/4 L IS. I'll eventually be getting the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. I want to get the 24-70 f/2.8 L, only problem is it's not IS. I also want to get the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Would it be better to get both, or should I just get one or the other? For the wide end, I also already have the Canon 10-22. Also, once I get either the 17-55 or 24-70 or both, should I get rid of the 24-105? I love this lens for it's quality and focal length coverage, great for walking around. But I'll have it's focal length covered in two other lenses both with faster apertures, just one w/o IS.
Whats everyone think? This will probably be awhile out, but just planning ahead.

Thanks!

Robinivich

As long as you expect to be shooting with the 50D for a while, I'd say go 17-55IS. The wide end is much wider, the long end not a huge amount shorter, it has IS, it's f2.8. This would complement the 24-105 IS better than a 24-70.

I'd keep the 24-105IS personally, though if I knew I'd never go full frame, maybe not!

If you are one of the many who lust after a 5dII (me too btw), then the 24-70 would be a better choice, but I'd probably only get it AFTER a 5d type camera.

ziggy53

Robinivich wrote:

As long as you expect to be shooting with the 50D for a while, I'd say go 17-55IS. The wide end is much wider, the long end not a huge amount shorter, it has IS, it's f2.8. This would complement the 24-105 IS better than a 24-70.

...

The EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is a wonderful lens on any of the modern Canon crop 1.6x cameras.

I shot a wedding about a month ago and did the reception with a combination of a 40D and the 17-55mm, f2.8 and it just did an awesome job in a perfectly dismal setting. I also used a flash and modifier but the lens really snapped to and focus was not really a problem.

Candid Arts

I know the 17-55 is an amazing lens, but getting that I would be over lapping from 17-22 (if I get rid of the 24-105, or 17-55 if I keep the 24-105) as well as missing from 55-70, assuming I sell the 24-105. Where as with the 24-70 I'd only be missing 22-24, which is nothing, it just doesn't have IS. Either way I go (17-55, 24-70, or both), the 24-105 will overlap everything I have. I don't mind carrying around an extra lens, so switching isn't a HUGE issue as I tend to carry around everything I have anytime I go shooting.

Such a tough decision. IS and miss 55-70mm, or no IS and only miss 22-24, and either way, keep an amazing walk around lens and not get the new one for a long time or sell the 24-105 and get either lens soon(er)? AAHHHHH!!!

Nikolai

For a crop camera with EF-S compatibility the ideal lineup is
10-22
17-55/2.8
70-200/2.8
100-400
...

The only piece "missing" is 55..70, but if you try it on something (I used 17-85 at a time) you'll see that you won't really miss it, cause you'll be fine with either end.

With FF (or any EF-only) body the beginning of the lineup becomes 16-35 (which is way more expensive than 10-22) and 24-70 (which is non IS).

Candid Arts

Nikolai wrote:

For a crop camera with EF-S compatibility the ideal lineup is
10-22
17-55/2.8
70-200/2.8
100-400
...

The only piece "missing" is 55..70, but if you try it on something (I used 17-85 at a time) you'll see that you won't really miss it, cause you'll be fine with either end.

With FF (or any EF-only) body the beginning of the lineup becomes 16-35 (which is way more expensive than 10-22) and 24-70 (which is non IS).

I think that's what I needed. Made up my mind. Now I just need to get it. I might be getting one brand new for like $150, so hopefully that goes through.

Nikolai

Candid Arts wrote:

I think that's what I needed. Made up my mind. Now I just need to get it. I might be getting one brand new for like $150, so hopefully that goes through.

Uhm, unless I'm gravely mistaken, none of these lenses I mentioned is brand new (or even used) for $150. 10-22 is the cheapest and it's still twice as much used..
Now $1,500 - sure:-)

Candid Arts

Nikolai wrote:

Uhm, unless I'm gravely mistaken, none of these lenses I mentioned is brand new (or even used) for $150. 10-22 is the cheapest and it's still twice as much used..
Now $1,500 - sure:-)

The 17-55 is $1030 new at B&H, however I might be able to get it for about $150. You read correct. :-D. Just have to wait forever as it's been about 2 months or so as it is...and still no word if it's 100% a go yet.

Nikolai

Candid Arts wrote:

The 17-55 is $1030 new at B&H, however I might be able to get it for about $150. You read correct. :-D. Just have to wait forever as it's been about 2 months or so as it is...and still no word if it's 100% a go yet.

$150???? Wow, I'd jump on that deal even though I have one:-)

Candid Arts

Nikolai wrote:

$150???? Wow, I'd jump on that deal even though I have one:-)

Haha, exactly! That's what I've been trying to do... I'd buy up as many as I could and start selling! except for one of course for my own collection... But I can't do that, only one...hopefully.

Hdr

Hrrm
I just happen to be in the market for a new lens also. That's a great price...

ziggy53

Hdr wrote:

I just happen to be in the market for a new lens also. That's a great price...

Hdr, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Candid Arts

Hdr wrote:

I just happen to be in the market for a new lens also. That's a great price...

extremely great price. it's one of those "a friend of a friend of a friend who knows a guy who is cousins with another guy" deals...

So I doubt it'll happen, but here's always hope.

ziggy53

Candid Arts wrote:

extremely great price. it's one of those "a friend of a friend of a friend who knows a guy who is cousins with another guy" deals...

So I doubt it'll happen, but here's always hope.

I suspect what they may offer you is a Canon EF-S 18-55mm, f3.5-5.6 IS which you "can" find for around $140USD in the "Import" version:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/585950-GREY/Canon_2042B002WB_EF_S_18_55mm_f_3_5_5_6_IS.html

Of course, it is nowhere near the lens that the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM happens to be.

Candid Arts

ziggy53 wrote:

I suspect what they may offer you is a Canon EF-S 18-55mm, f3.5-5.6 IS which you "can" find for around $140USD in the "Import" version:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/585950-GREY/Canon_2042B002WB_EF_S_18_55mm_f_3_5_5_6_IS.html

Of course, it is nowhere near the lens that the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM happens to be.

Oh no, it's most certainly the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. I wouldn't take it if it were the 18-55...

Nikolai

Candid Arts wrote:

Oh no, it's most certainly the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. I wouldn't take it if it were the 18-55...

Caveat emptor!
Ziggy makes a very good point, and "a friend of a friend of a friend" may not even know the difference between 17-55 and 18-55...

Candid Arts

Nikolai wrote:

Caveat emptor!
Ziggy makes a very good point, and "a friend of a friend of a friend" may not even know the difference between 17-55 and 18-55...

I would hope not being he is some sort of Canon rep or something. He works for a Canon dealer, hence the deal...

Robinivich

Candid Arts wrote:

I would hope not being he is some sort of Canon rep or something. He works for a Canon dealer, hence the deal...

For $150?! Did the previous owner have any serious health problems? Is it radioactive? Hopefully there's no assembly required! I was only too thrilled when I found one locally for 600 ($CAN). All I know is I've got my fingers crossed for you

Candid Arts

Robinivich wrote:

For $150?! Did the previous owner have any serious health problems? Is it radioactive? Hopefully there's no assembly required! I was only too thrilled when I found one locally for 600 ($CAN). All I know is I've got my fingers crossed for you

It'd be brand new from the factory...

M.MoranPhotography

Candid Arts wrote:

Ok, so I currently have the Canon 24-104 f/4 L IS. I'll eventually be getting the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. I want to get the 24-70 f/2.8 L, only problem is it's not IS. I also want to get the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Would it be better to get both, or should I just get one or the other? For the wide end, I also already have the Canon 10-22. Also, once I get either the 17-55 or 24-70 or both, should I get rid of the 24-105? I love this lens for it's quality and focal length coverage, great for walking around. But I'll have it's focal length covered in two other lenses both with faster apertures, just one w/o IS.
Whats everyone think? This will probably be awhile out, but just planning ahead.

Thanks!

10-22, 17-55, 70-200
that 50mm is a good start.

thats it.

if the 17 is too heavy for you, then its the 24-105.

not much room for error lol.

Candid Arts

M.MoranPhotography wrote:

10-22, 17-55, 70-200
that 50mm is a good start.

thats it.

if the 17 is too heavy for you, then its the 24-105.

not much room for error lol.

Yeup. Gettin that. I do have the 50 1.4 as well as the 100 2.8 macro.

So 17-55 it is, just need to get it now.

Oh, something else I just thought of. I also shoot an Elan II E (film boddied camera). So the 17-55 wouldn't fit that. Yes I'll be using my 50D WAY more often, but the Elan will still be there. So, 17-55 now, then 24-70 later? Or just keep the 24-105 (IS, but only f/4...)?

ziggy53

Candid Arts wrote:

... I also shoot an Elan II E (film boddied camera). So the 17-55 wouldn't fit that. Yes I'll be using my 50D WAY more often, but the Elan will still be there. So, 17-55 now, then 24-70 later? Or just keep the 24-105 (IS, but only f/4...)?

Since you have both the Elan IIE and the 24-105mm, f4L ask yourself:

How will I use the Elan film camera versus the 50D digital camera?
Have I been limited, or felt limited, by the 24-105mm, f4L on the Elan film camera?

Try to avoid "what could be" and stick with real experiences.

Candid Arts

ziggy53 wrote:

Since you have both the Elan IIE and the 24-105mm, f4L ask yourself:

How will I use the Elan film camera versus the 50D digital camera?
Have I been limited, or felt limited, by the 24-105mm, f4L on the Elan film camera?

Try to avoid "what could be" and stick with real experiences.

Good point. I haven't ran into any issues with using the 24-105 f/4 on the Elan, it's a good focal length, IS, and great IQ. However, it's always nice to have that faster lens when its needed, but as of yet, it hasn't been needed. A lot of the work with the Elan thus far has been on a tripod, so the IS isn't an issue for that, but it's also been at higher apertures, so the 2.8 isn't a need in that sense either. I think for its needs however, the 24-105 will be just fine.

Thanks for the advice everyone.