If I were to save up some money...which one?

rosselliot

If I were to save up to get a really nice lens, which one? currently I have the 70-200 f/4 and the 50 f/1.8. I don't have a wide angle, and it's really getting on my nerves, so I'm saving to get one. but I don't want to settle for less, and I want a GREAT general purpose lens. while on vacation, traveling, for events, portraits, everything.

some background - I take pictures for the school yearbook, at pep rallies (in the gym, normal lighting, but high ISO is needed), at football games, at school, etc. I've obviously been using the 50 f/1.8 in order to get the speed needed in such conditions. I also take portraits, and will begin doing events - so I need to be prepared for low light church areas, etc.

The ones I'm leaning to now is Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens or the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens.

on the 30D will 24 be wide enough?! it's be equal to 40mm right? does anyone have any examples of pictures taken at 40mm?

and the other option is:

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens

yes, sorry, I actually meant to include the 17-40 f/2.8 L on my list too. didn't mean to leave it off.

I'd really appreciate any comments and/or suggestions!

- RE

Red Bull

While I don't have any experience with those lenses, I will suggest taking a look at the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L. I have the 17-40 f/4 L and it's pretty much the same but with no 2.8. I absolutely love my 17-40.

Just a thought.

digismile

I had a similar dilemma a couple of years ago, trying to decide between the Canon 16-35 and the 24-70. Since it's a pretty big investment in either lens, I chose to rent them for a day and put them through their paces. In the end, I found that the 24-70mm wasn't as wide as I wanted and I bought the 16-35. (my other glass: 50mm f1.8, 70-200 f2.8 IS). (BTW, on a 1.6 x sensor, even 16mm isn't real wide. I think that's why you'll see a number of folks here using the 10-22mm.)

However, I did rent the 24-70 for a recent wedding, as it allowed me a bit more versatility during the ceremony without having to change a lens. Some reasonably wide shots from a short distance, plus tighter head shots without having to be up close and personal with the bride/groom and officient!

I think the 24-70 would be great for your portrait/event use. I'm not sure that you'd find it wide enough for outdoor/vacation photos. It really depends on the photograph you're trying to take.

I hope to someday fill in the gap with the 24-70. For now, the 16-35 fills more of my needs. The 50mm f1.8 is a pretty good stop gap for this range.

Is a wide angle a must have or liek to have?

Just my 2 cents.

Poseidon

Here's my suggestion: 17-55 2.8!

I used to be a yearbook photographer, and I remember well the demands of pep rallies, and indoor sports. I still shoot in my highschool gym, and it is a dungeon for lighting! The 17-55 will give you what you need as far as wide angle for the rallies, and speed for the sports, sitting under the basket etc...

I currently own the 24-70 and I love it, I have the 70-200 2.8 and love it, I have the 24-105 and it lives on my 20D. All three are great, but on a 1.6 crop the 24-105 is not really wide at all. On my 1D it is... "kinda''

I don't think you will regret the purchase, I almost bought that one for my 20D, but I wanted to be able to use it on the 1D if need be, and no go with that EF-S...

DavidTO

I don't think the 24mm range is particularly wide angle on the 30D, what with the crop factor, that's an effective focal range of 38.4. Meh.

Me? With the lenses you have (and I have the same 70-200, and the 50 1.4), I'd get the 17-40 f4L. Now that's a nice lens. Nice and wide, not too much money, used by our landscape pro on our Yosemite and Bryce/Zion trips, Marc Muench.

rosselliot

any thoughs on the tamron 17-50 f/2.8? I just happened upon it, and realized it filled the focal length and the aperature, and not to mention it's less than half of those? just wonderin'...


- Re

wxwax

I'd say the 16-35 f2.8

Sounds like you need the speed.

DavidTO

wxwax wrote:

I'd say the 16-35 f2.8

Sounds like you need the speed.

Yabbut money's tight and that's 3x the cost of the 17-40.

Seefutlung

rosselliot wrote:

any thoughs on the tamron 17-50 f/2.8? I just happened upon it, and realized it filled the focal length and the aperature, and not to mention it's less than half of those? just wonderin'...


- Re

A bud of mine just got the Tammy. I used it the other day. It is compact, lightweight and very very sharp (as sharp as any L per resolution testing). This would be a very good call.

The 24 isn't wide enough. If you need an Ultra-Wide ... can't go wrong with the 10-22 EF-S. Great lens.

Most cluck for the buck would be the Tamron 17-50. Best ultra-wide would be the 10-22 EF-S.

Gary

claudermilk

Seefutlung wrote:

A bud of mine just got the Tammy. I used it the other day. It is compact, lightweight and very very sharp (as sharp as any L per resolution testing). This would be a very good call.

The 24 isn't wide enough. If you need an Ultra-Wide ... can't go wrong with the 10-22 EF-S. Great lens.

Most cluck for the buck would be the Tamron 17-50. Best ultra-wide would be the 10-22 EF-S.

Gary

Another highly rated ultra wide is the Tokina 12-24. I can give some impressions after tomorrow when mine shows up. Sample shots I've seen are every bit as good as those from the 10-22--and it's 30% less expensive.