Lens Opinion Please
I have a Canon 20D and mostly use an EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM lens. Here in S.E. Alaska we have alot of low light conditions so I'm thinking of buying a EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. Is this a wise choice ?
Here's the type of photos I usually take www.palusmus.smugmug.com .
Opinions please
Here's the type of photos I usually take www.palusmus.smugmug.com .
Opinions please
0
Comments
I have the 20D also. My walkaround lens is a Tamron 28-75 f2/8; it's pretty high quality, especially for the money. My sports (and limited wildlife) lens is a Canon 70-200 f/4L (non-IS). These make a decent value-for-the-money kit in my opinion.
If I had the cash I would buy the 24-105 f/4L IS as my walkaround lens, and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. But that's a pipe dream for me!
I guess it's all in what you shoot, and what your budget is.
and the 24-70 f2.8L is just as great (in my mind)-
you buy ef-s and you ever move up to, say, the 5d, that ef-s lens stays behind-
I am certainly no expert but I am a massive fan of the 28-300 IS/L it is fantastic for my motorsport photography but also wonderfully versitile for other sceic shooting BUT it is an absolute killer on the neck on a whole day shoot.
I was so impressed with this L series lens I saved like fury and recently got myself the new Canon 24-105 IS/L. Wow, like the 28-300 wonderfull half the size a great all day general purpose lens. Admittedly a lot of money but to my mind well worth the expedature.
(Irony is both lens are worth more than my camera Canon 30D but the are so worth it AND they will move up with me if (ever) I can afford to move up.