Canon 15-85 or 17-55
Okay,
As my last post stated I'm new to this photography thing. I've been playing with a buddy's 40D and love it, way more than the rebels for size and interface that is. I've basically narrowed my budget and decisions down to two options. I wish I had a ton of money I'd just get L lenses all over the board but can't do that as I'm teaching English in China so that doesn't provide much income. Here are my options.
Refurb 40D + 17-55
Refurb 40D + 15-85 (maybe also the 50 1.4 but that'd be tight money wise)
or finally New 50D + new 15-85 (Can't afford the new camera with the 17-55
I know I know, the 17-55 is amazing, it's like and L for crops, I know that. However, I just wanted some opinions from people who have used either or better yet both lenses, and have thoughts. I find that what I like to shoot in China most really warrants the 28-135 but that's old, and not wide enough as I can only have one maybe two lenses right now, but I love shooting stuff that happens in daily life in China. Mostly people and things I see walking through the city. So while I do love to get close, I also need wide ish angles for tourist stuff etc.
So my dilemma is two fold. Is the overall IQ of the 17-55 that much better (I know the DOF is, 2.8 everyone says is a huge deal however it seems 1.4 would do way better than that, but I do want to have some versatility with distances shot) Is it possible to get good shallow DOP with the 15-85 by zooming in, I've heard that kind of creates some DOP but prolly not as good as the 2.8. ANyway, sorry for the longwindedness I'm just really torn. IN a perfect world I'd get maybe a 10-22, 24-105L, and 70-200 f4, but can't dot hat right now so need something that does a variety but I can lean more towards one end as I know zooms are all about compromises. So what do you all think, go shorter and more expensive or longer newer cheaper less DOF and maybe if I'm lucky a prime. Thanks in advance.
Tim
As my last post stated I'm new to this photography thing. I've been playing with a buddy's 40D and love it, way more than the rebels for size and interface that is. I've basically narrowed my budget and decisions down to two options. I wish I had a ton of money I'd just get L lenses all over the board but can't do that as I'm teaching English in China so that doesn't provide much income. Here are my options.
Refurb 40D + 17-55
Refurb 40D + 15-85 (maybe also the 50 1.4 but that'd be tight money wise)
or finally New 50D + new 15-85 (Can't afford the new camera with the 17-55
I know I know, the 17-55 is amazing, it's like and L for crops, I know that. However, I just wanted some opinions from people who have used either or better yet both lenses, and have thoughts. I find that what I like to shoot in China most really warrants the 28-135 but that's old, and not wide enough as I can only have one maybe two lenses right now, but I love shooting stuff that happens in daily life in China. Mostly people and things I see walking through the city. So while I do love to get close, I also need wide ish angles for tourist stuff etc.
So my dilemma is two fold. Is the overall IQ of the 17-55 that much better (I know the DOF is, 2.8 everyone says is a huge deal however it seems 1.4 would do way better than that, but I do want to have some versatility with distances shot) Is it possible to get good shallow DOP with the 15-85 by zooming in, I've heard that kind of creates some DOP but prolly not as good as the 2.8. ANyway, sorry for the longwindedness I'm just really torn. IN a perfect world I'd get maybe a 10-22, 24-105L, and 70-200 f4, but can't dot hat right now so need something that does a variety but I can lean more towards one end as I know zooms are all about compromises. So what do you all think, go shorter and more expensive or longer newer cheaper less DOF and maybe if I'm lucky a prime. Thanks in advance.
Tim
0
Comments
The-Digital-Picture review of this lens has what seems to be very good information on this lens and does offer up a comparison between it and the 17-55. If you will be doing your shooting outdoors with a decent amount of light and you aren't so worried about bokeh, then the 15-85 might be worth looking at. However, if you are shooting indoors, you might have some issues ... especially at the longer end where the maximum aperture falls to f/5.6.
And something else to consider .... the difference between f/2.8 and f/5.6 is 2 stops - might be significant enough if one is trying to stop action. The claimed improved IS, no matter how good, does nothing to help with stopping action. Is this important to you? You can affect the the DOF by either zooming in or moving closer to your subject. However, with the 15-85, zooming to 85 reduces the maximum aperture to f/5.6 - pretty much negating the effect zooming might have on the bokeh. The lens choice really falls to what (and where) you will be shooting. For what I shoot, the EF-S 25-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is a non-starter - I need a constant aperture. Optics aside, I would prefer even the EF 24-105 f/4 L over the 15-85 - just for the constant aperture.
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
The range is a bit restricted - so I ended up buying a tele and a macro as well. I would have done this even with the 15-85. I used the 15-85 a few times and it is a fine all-round lens. If you have steady hands (I don't) you can use low shutter speeds also as the IS is excellent.
I think when you are learning photography that good glass gives you a lot of pleasure and teaches you a lot about what can be expected. In my opinion, unless you can afford a real pro lens, you can experiment joyfully with a prime - I would go with an 85mm for portaits on EF-S but the 50mm 1.4 is apparently a great lens also.
Difficult choice. After 50 years of photography I know the one thing I never regretted is buying the best glass I could afford. The 17-55 fits in this class for me and that is why I bought it and never looked back.
The 15-85 plus a prime gives you an excellent set up also and is maybe a better all-round choice for capturing China plus taking a few artistic masterpieces as you learn about photography.
There is a big difference between being a serious amateur and being a professional. The pro has no choice about whether to go for the shot. This is why the pro is compelled to buy kit with the most flexible specifications and pay the price. We amateurs can back-off and wait for a better day, or shoot anyway and try to make it half-way respectable in post. What I also learned is that great photos are made by people and not by the kit itself. All Canon lenses are capable of helping you take a great photo, so there is no wrong decision here. You have to understand the potential and limitations of your kit and work accordingly.
By the way, the 40D is a great choice. It is imho becoming a classic.
something newer, if you don't like the 500D either the 50D or 7D and Tamron 17-50 2.8
Remember that I am a newbie with this camera but check this out, taken with the 17-55 wide open at f2.8 at 55mm and using an external flash (bounced & wireless). Click the photo to go to the album where you can view it in original size.
ciao!
Nick.
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here