I have just had a PM conversation with Ross about possibly selling him my copy of the 17-55. I love the lens to bits, but I'm seriously toying with the idea of going full frame. Anyway, as part of the process, he wanted to see some close shots of the lens, and when I took them - what the?!? there is actually dust inside my lens! Not much, and I've never seen it in images, but it's there. I'd never paid much attention to the complaints about dust with this lens, but it seems they are valid. This is not good enough for a $1k+ lens that's only IIRC 4 months old. It's not like I live in a coal mine or anything.
Grrr...
Constructive criticism always welcome!
"Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it." - Confucius
I'm going through the same exact quandary. I already have the 10-22 and 70-200 f/4L IS but nothing in the middle except for a 50mm f/1.4 which, although it's fab, is more of a portrait lens on a 1.6x FOVCF body.
2 things leap to mind:
1. Rent them both and try them out. If you don't have a good local camera shop that rents try lensrentals.com or lensprotogo.com. Renting is how I came to decide on the 10-22 and the 50 f/1.4
2. If low light performance is important to you, why not go for a nice f/1.4 or 1.8 prime in the range? Yes, you lose the utility of the zooms, but with the 50, I'm starting to remember how great primes can be. I still pine for my old Olympus OM-1 and Zuiko 50mm f/1.8. I've always been a believer in limitation being the mother of creativity.
For the inside of museums etc I think you'll find 24mm too long. Infact you may find 17mm too long. I can't say what light levels you'll find as it's sure to vary but I can understand why you would want IS.
I think you also need to consider the DOF you may want for interiors.
With these two things in mind I suggest you consider the 10-22. I fits nicely below your existing lenses and has great IQ. Also when used at the wider end it can be handheld at very slow shutter speeds. I'd say most could handhold at 1/15th and 10mm gives huge DOF.
For the indoor portraits use your existing 50mm and for outdoor all your existing lenses will be fine.
If you dont need the 17mm then buy the 24-105mm. Reason?
Try this next time you have a chance to check out the 17-55mm:
Look trough the lens @ 55mm and remember the frame it covers.
Then walk forward and slowly zoom to 17mm (while trying to
maintain the same frame in your viewfinder). When you reached 17mm
look back and see what distance you covered. Its probably around 3m.
My point is that if you're not going to be able to move around this
distance when shooting then this zoom range can be of use for you.
Otherwise in my opinion there is only the 17mm that speaks for the
17-55 if you look at the range.
If I was you I'd get the 24-105mm/4.0 and later the 10-22mm if
you really need wide angle coverage.
just my 2 cents
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
Crop cameras and EF-S lenses sure made life complicated.
I've been debating this for months and finally decided I will go full frame for sure, just not yet. Alas, I need something wider right now, but it needs to be usable when I go full frame. For long telephoto I really like IS, but for wide, I would much rather have a faster lens, as I like to shoot indoor with natural light as often as possible. Currently I have the Tamron 28-75 and I love it, but no way is it wide enough, and even worse on the 30D. I'd probably just go with the 16-35 were it not for the hefty price tag, if I had just sold a 17-55 I would for sure.
So, these are what I have found so far:
1. The Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4
2. The old Canon 17-35 if I can find one
3. The Tokina 20-35 f2.8
4. The Canon 20mm f2.8
Cons: The Tamron is 2.8-4, the old Canon is hard to find, still somewhat expensive, 20mm is probably not wide enough, even though 17 is only 3mm wider.
Crop cameras and EF-S lenses sure made life complicated.
I've been debating this for months and finally decided I will go full frame for sure, just not yet. Alas, I need something wider right now, but it needs to be usable when I go full frame. For long telephoto I really like IS, but for wide, I would much rather have a faster lens, as I like to shoot indoor with natural light as often as possible. Currently I have the Tamron 28-75 and I love it, but no way is it wide enough, and even worse on the 30D. I'd probably just go with the 16-35 were it not for the hefty price tag, if I had just sold a 17-55 I would for sure.
So, these are what I have found so far:
1. The Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4
2. The old Canon 17-35 if I can find one
3. The Tokina 20-35 f2.8
4. The Canon 20mm f2.8
Cons: The Tamron is 2.8-4, the old Canon is hard to find, still somewhat expensive, 20mm is probably not wide enough, even though 17 is only 3mm wider.
Take a look at the Tamron 17-50mm/2.8 SP its very similar to the
28-75mm/2.7 in terms of performance. Or the Canon 10-22/3.5-4.5
and push up the ISO one level.
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
Since he's definitely going FF, the 10-22 is not a good option. Actually knowing that FF is in the future, it simplifies things considerably: the Sigma 12-24--it's the only UWA zoom that works on FF, so all the rest can now be ignored.
Since he's definitely going FF, the 10-22 is not a good option. Actually knowing that FF is in the future, it simplifies things considerably: the Sigma 12-24--it's the only UWA zoom that works on FF, so all the rest can now be ignored.
Not so fast, how about the Sigma 15-30mm/3.5-4.5 EX its also a full frame lens.
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
Not so fast, how about the Sigma 15-30mm/3.5-4.5 EX its also a full frame lens.
Why does going FF automatically mean you have to divest yourself of all your cropped gear? You could keep your 1.6x body and a few good lenses as a second camera. The 10-22 isn't just a stop-gap lens, it's a really great one.
The Tamron 17-50 does look great, except as far as I can tell its for APS-C sensors only. The 10-22 IS a great lens, but there is no way I can afford to keep my 1.6x body when I go full frame at the moment. The 12-24 is also a solid performer, but too slow for indoor ambient light shooting on a regular basis. Possibly with the ISO quality of the 5D, but on the 30D it won't quite cut it.
I'm going to france over spring break, and want to come back and get a book printed of all of my photos etc. etc. I want to get one of them blown up really big etc. I want really good pictures from my trip. so the ONLY lenses I have right now are the Tamron 17-55 f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.8 remember I have the 30D so it's a cropped sensor!!!
what would be the ONE lens under $700 y'all would add? wide angle for landscapes of france? or replace the 'normal zoom' I have now with one more high quality?
My Equipment: Canon EOS 5D w/ battery grip Backup Canon EOS 30D | Canon 28 f/1.8 | Canon 24 f/1.4L Canon 50mm f/1.4 | Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DI Macro | Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L | Canon 580 EX II Flash and Canon 550 EX Flash Apple MacBook Pro with dual 24" monitors
Domke F-802 bag and a Shootsac by Jessica Claire
Infiniti QX4
Get over it already...you got a lot of good advice, so pick what you want.
Maybe it's not a new lens you NEED, it's just something you WANT..
The lenses you list will get the job done. You could save the $500 for the trip, or get a few more CF cards to carry along so you can shoot, shoot, shoot, and not have to worry about loading your shots to the pc midday.
Get over it already...you got a lot of good advice, so pick what you want.
Maybe it's not a new lens you NEED, it's just something you WANT..
The lenses you list will get the job done. You could save the $500 for the trip, or get a few more CF cards to carry along so you can shoot, shoot, shoot, and not have to worry about loading your shots to the pc midday.
I know I know, geez - pindy, or pundy, or whatever his name was I can't remember just wanted to know what I decided on, and I answered I haven't! I'm probably one of the most indecisive person on earth.
My Equipment: Canon EOS 5D w/ battery grip Backup Canon EOS 30D | Canon 28 f/1.8 | Canon 24 f/1.4L Canon 50mm f/1.4 | Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DI Macro | Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L | Canon 580 EX II Flash and Canon 550 EX Flash Apple MacBook Pro with dual 24" monitors
Domke F-802 bag and a Shootsac by Jessica Claire
Infiniti QX4
I know I know, geez - pindy, or pundy, or whatever his name was I can't remember just wanted to know what I decided on, and I answered I haven't! I'm probably one of the most indecisive person on earth.
- RE
Then don't buy anything. Go with what you've got and learn how to make
it work for you.
Sorted.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Then don't buy anything. Go with what you've got and learn how to make
it work for you.
Sorted.
Indeed. But it sounds like money's burning a hole in your pockets.
I was having the same exact thing as you were originally (17-55 IS vs 24-105 vs primes) and 5 days ago went with the Canon 17-55. The major argument against it wasn't the price since I got a lens with very hi IQ. It was the principle of paying L prices for a non-L lens w/o a hood—something most around here felt was a bit unseemly.
The dust problem (will report back on this after using it awhile) bothered most people but it is yet another problem of principle, not of IQ. The 24-105 L, nice at it was, felt a lot better on the 5D than on the 400D and therefore the 30D. As for the lifespan of EFS, nobody here can say with any more authority than little old me, and I don't plan on getting rid of APS-C even if I go FF because of the telephoto benefits, so my conscience is clear. I would love to see the successor to the 5D be able to take EFS and have some sort of sensor crop feature, done in software perhaps. A guy can dream.
The 17-55 IS is a cake-and-eat-it-too lens in a lot of ways and once I downloaded the first sets of test shots, all internal dialogue was over—this guy is likely to live on my 400D with the 70-200 and 10-22 there to sort out the margins for normal situations.
If low light really is your concern, get a prime and be happy. I came across some beautiful shots taken with the 35 f/2 and the 85 f/1.8 looks like a fantastic lens bargain. Don't forget the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. If you must do a zoom, you won't get better low-light hand-hold-ability than f/2.8 IS—quite literally. That's why I bought it. I think this must be the most debated focal range on the fora. The nice thing is that you can head over to pbase.com and do a search by lens, which can help your decision.
Note that the 17-55 is quite a hefty lens, almost the same dimensions as the 24-105L. It looks like it means business, even if it's a dust vacuum
I'm going to france over spring break, and want to come back and get a book printed of all of my photos etc. etc. I want to get one of them blown up really big etc. I want really good pictures from my trip. so the ONLY lenses I have right now are the Tamron 17-55 f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.8 remember I have the 30D so it's a cropped sensor!!!
what would be the ONE lens under $700 y'all would add? wide angle for landscapes of france? or replace the 'normal zoom' I have now with one more high quality?
- RE
If you have the wide end covered, and the low light with the f1.8, I would add the 70-200f4L. Its an outstanding lens, great for portraits and street scenes. You can pick up the f4L for about $500.
Remember,too, that you will have many great scenes that need to get beyond the low level clutter, a telephoto does that nicely.
I "see" in telephoto terms, so I use this as my walk around lens and love it.
Z
It is the purpose of life that each of us strives to become actually what he is potentially. We should be obsessed with stretching towards that goal through the world we inhabit.
I've read every word of this thread, twice, and while its confirmed some of my dilemma (almost identical to Ross' OP) its left me as indecisive as the beginning. I have never hijacked a thread before but this thread seems to have evolved into the "20D wide fast zoom" forum.
I do have my first "alone" weddings lined up this year (after using another pro's gear in assist gigs), and so that is why I'm revamping the lineup overall. The rest of my work is portraits, all on location - in clients' homes or outdoors. Originally got the 17-85 IS / 50mm 1.8 / 85mm 1.8 for low light/bokeh.
But I learned with weddings you really need fast zooms, primes just aren't versatile enough. So sold the 17-85 last week and got a Sigma 24-70 2.8 Macro. Hate it. Not quite wide enough, AF is slow and grinds like a Castrol commercial. I can see the bridezilla fire breathing now if I used that during the ceremony.
So I have two days left to trade it in toward a different lens, and I'm down to the Tamron 17-50 or Canon 17-55 IS. At least I think. I am also getting a fast telephoto zoom (90% sure a 70-200 2.8 Sigma) at the same time, but that lineup leaves a gap btw 50-70mm, hence why I chose the 24-70 to begin with.
So should I get the Tamron 17-50 and then the Sigma 50-150 so I have no gap? Or is it really that big of a deal? I don't know much about the 50-150, and have heard nothing but raves about the 70-200. I have a lens budget of $1400 if you count the return credit. I am open to the Canon lens, just trying to get the best lineup overall.
[I sure wish someone made a 17~85 2.8...with USM....with or without IS. It seems us 20d owners are all having the same dilemma. Every current choice requres sacrificing crucial range or aperture. I guess the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 comes close, but not close enough.]
canon efs 17-85 f/2.8 usm is is to be released
let us write to canon or tamron in every forum to make a 17-85 f/2.8 is lens. canon know (17-85 f/2.8 usm is) sell like hot cake but they know too they cant squeez much money from the poor forcing them to buy 17-55, 24-70. let us ask them to be more transparent for poor like us and why they dont make such a lens.its nt fair that 17-55 without L sells for $1030 yet leaving much desired at longer end.where as a 17-85 even at this price tag would have a better solution as a general all purpose lens.
copy and paste this on al forum where u are a member sure the canon ll notice it.
let us write to canon or tamron in every forum to make a 17-85 f/2.8 is lens. canon know (17-85 f/2.8 usm is) sell like hot cake but they know too they cant squeez much money from the poor forcing them to buy 17-55, 24-70. let us ask them to be more transparent for poor like us and why they dont make such a lens.its nt fair that 17-55 without L sells for $1030 yet leaving much desired at longer end.where as a 17-85 even at this price tag would have a better solution as a general all purpose lens.
copy and paste this on al forum where u are a member sure the canon ll notice it.
Priteesh, welcome to the Digital Grin.
Feel free to write if you wish. I would suspect that you would not be happy with the cost of such a lens nor happy with the weight of such a lens. It would be a beast.
Comments
Thank you. That's a point in its favor then.
I have just had a PM conversation with Ross about possibly selling him my copy of the 17-55. I love the lens to bits, but I'm seriously toying with the idea of going full frame. Anyway, as part of the process, he wanted to see some close shots of the lens, and when I took them - what the?!? there is actually dust inside my lens! Not much, and I've never seen it in images, but it's there. I'd never paid much attention to the complaints about dust with this lens, but it seems they are valid. This is not good enough for a $1k+ lens that's only IIRC 4 months old. It's not like I live in a coal mine or anything.
Grrr...
"Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it." - Confucius
2 things leap to mind:
1. Rent them both and try them out. If you don't have a good local camera shop that rents try lensrentals.com or lensprotogo.com. Renting is how I came to decide on the 10-22 and the 50 f/1.4
2. If low light performance is important to you, why not go for a nice f/1.4 or 1.8 prime in the range? Yes, you lose the utility of the zooms, but with the 50, I'm starting to remember how great primes can be. I still pine for my old Olympus OM-1 and Zuiko 50mm f/1.8. I've always been a believer in limitation being the mother of creativity.
Good luck.
I think you also need to consider the DOF you may want for interiors.
With these two things in mind I suggest you consider the 10-22. I fits nicely below your existing lenses and has great IQ. Also when used at the wider end it can be handheld at very slow shutter speeds. I'd say most could handhold at 1/15th and 10mm gives huge DOF.
For the indoor portraits use your existing 50mm and for outdoor all your existing lenses will be fine.
Try this next time you have a chance to check out the 17-55mm:
Look trough the lens @ 55mm and remember the frame it covers.
Then walk forward and slowly zoom to 17mm (while trying to
maintain the same frame in your viewfinder). When you reached 17mm
look back and see what distance you covered. Its probably around 3m.
My point is that if you're not going to be able to move around this
distance when shooting then this zoom range can be of use for you.
Otherwise in my opinion there is only the 17mm that speaks for the
17-55 if you look at the range.
If I was you I'd get the 24-105mm/4.0 and later the 10-22mm if
you really need wide angle coverage.
just my 2 cents
― Edward Weston
I've been debating this for months and finally decided I will go full frame for sure, just not yet. Alas, I need something wider right now, but it needs to be usable when I go full frame. For long telephoto I really like IS, but for wide, I would much rather have a faster lens, as I like to shoot indoor with natural light as often as possible. Currently I have the Tamron 28-75 and I love it, but no way is it wide enough, and even worse on the 30D. I'd probably just go with the 16-35 were it not for the hefty price tag, if I had just sold a 17-55 I would for sure.
So, these are what I have found so far:
1. The Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4
2. The old Canon 17-35 if I can find one
3. The Tokina 20-35 f2.8
4. The Canon 20mm f2.8
Cons: The Tamron is 2.8-4, the old Canon is hard to find, still somewhat expensive, 20mm is probably not wide enough, even though 17 is only 3mm wider.
Take a look at the Tamron 17-50mm/2.8 SP its very similar to the
28-75mm/2.7 in terms of performance. Or the Canon 10-22/3.5-4.5
and push up the ISO one level.
― Edward Weston
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Not so fast, how about the Sigma 15-30mm/3.5-4.5 EX its also a full frame lens.
― Edward Weston
Why does going FF automatically mean you have to divest yourself of all your cropped gear? You could keep your 1.6x body and a few good lenses as a second camera. The 10-22 isn't just a stop-gap lens, it's a really great one.
UGH! I have yet to make a decision!
look, let me know what y'all think:
I'm going to france over spring break, and want to come back and get a book printed of all of my photos etc. etc. I want to get one of them blown up really big etc. I want really good pictures from my trip. so the ONLY lenses I have right now are the Tamron 17-55 f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.8 remember I have the 30D so it's a cropped sensor!!!
what would be the ONE lens under $700 y'all would add? wide angle for landscapes of france? or replace the 'normal zoom' I have now with one more high quality?
- RE
www.rossfrazier.com/blog
My Equipment:
Canon EOS 5D w/ battery grip
Backup Canon EOS 30D | Canon 28 f/1.8 | Canon 24 f/1.4L Canon 50mm f/1.4 | Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DI Macro | Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L | Canon 580 EX II Flash and Canon 550 EX Flash
Apple MacBook Pro with dual 24" monitors
Domke F-802 bag and a Shootsac by Jessica Claire
Infiniti QX4
Get over it already...you got a lot of good advice, so pick what you want.
Maybe it's not a new lens you NEED, it's just something you WANT..
The lenses you list will get the job done. You could save the $500 for the trip, or get a few more CF cards to carry along so you can shoot, shoot, shoot, and not have to worry about loading your shots to the pc midday.
I know I know, geez - pindy, or pundy, or whatever his name was I can't remember just wanted to know what I decided on, and I answered
- RE
www.rossfrazier.com/blog
My Equipment:
Canon EOS 5D w/ battery grip
Backup Canon EOS 30D | Canon 28 f/1.8 | Canon 24 f/1.4L Canon 50mm f/1.4 | Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DI Macro | Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L | Canon 580 EX II Flash and Canon 550 EX Flash
Apple MacBook Pro with dual 24" monitors
Domke F-802 bag and a Shootsac by Jessica Claire
Infiniti QX4
Then don't buy anything. Go with what you've got and learn how to make
it work for you.
Sorted.
Indeed. But it sounds like money's burning a hole in your pockets.
I was having the same exact thing as you were originally (17-55 IS vs 24-105 vs primes) and 5 days ago went with the Canon 17-55. The major argument against it wasn't the price since I got a lens with very hi IQ. It was the principle of paying L prices for a non-L lens w/o a hood—something most around here felt was a bit unseemly.
The dust problem (will report back on this after using it awhile) bothered most people but it is yet another problem of principle, not of IQ. The 24-105 L, nice at it was, felt a lot better on the 5D than on the 400D and therefore the 30D. As for the lifespan of EFS, nobody here can say with any more authority than little old me, and I don't plan on getting rid of APS-C even if I go FF because of the telephoto benefits, so my conscience is clear. I would love to see the successor to the 5D be able to take EFS and have some sort of sensor crop feature, done in software perhaps. A guy can dream.
The 17-55 IS is a cake-and-eat-it-too lens in a lot of ways and once I downloaded the first sets of test shots, all internal dialogue was over—this guy is likely to live on my 400D with the 70-200 and 10-22 there to sort out the margins for normal situations.
If low light really is your concern, get a prime and be happy. I came across some beautiful shots taken with the 35 f/2 and the 85 f/1.8 looks like a fantastic lens bargain. Don't forget the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. If you must do a zoom, you won't get better low-light hand-hold-ability than f/2.8 IS—quite literally. That's why I bought it. I think this must be the most debated focal range on the fora. The nice thing is that you can head over to pbase.com and do a search by lens, which can help your decision.
Note that the 17-55 is quite a hefty lens, almost the same dimensions as the 24-105L. It looks like it means business, even if it's a dust vacuum
If you have the wide end covered, and the low light with the f1.8, I would add the 70-200f4L. Its an outstanding lens, great for portraits and street scenes. You can pick up the f4L for about $500.
Remember,too, that you will have many great scenes that need to get beyond the low level clutter, a telephoto does that nicely.
I "see" in telephoto terms, so I use this as my walk around lens and love it.
Z
I do have my first "alone" weddings lined up this year (after using another pro's gear in assist gigs), and so that is why I'm revamping the lineup overall. The rest of my work is portraits, all on location - in clients' homes or outdoors. Originally got the 17-85 IS / 50mm 1.8 / 85mm 1.8 for low light/bokeh.
But I learned with weddings you really need fast zooms, primes just aren't versatile enough. So sold the 17-85 last week and got a Sigma 24-70 2.8 Macro. Hate it. Not quite wide enough, AF is slow and grinds like a Castrol commercial. I can see the bridezilla fire breathing now if I used that during the ceremony.
So I have two days left to trade it in toward a different lens, and I'm down to the Tamron 17-50 or Canon 17-55 IS. At least I think. I am also getting a fast telephoto zoom (90% sure a 70-200 2.8 Sigma) at the same time, but that lineup leaves a gap btw 50-70mm, hence why I chose the 24-70 to begin with.
So should I get the Tamron 17-50 and then the Sigma 50-150 so I have no gap? Or is it really that big of a deal? I don't know much about the 50-150, and have heard nothing but raves about the 70-200. I have a lens budget of $1400 if you count the return credit. I am open to the Canon lens, just trying to get the best lineup overall.
[I sure wish someone made a 17~85 2.8...with USM....with or without IS. It seems us 20d owners are all having the same dilemma. Every current choice requres sacrificing crucial range or aperture. I guess the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 comes close, but not close enough.]
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
let us write to canon or tamron in every forum to make a 17-85 f/2.8 is lens. canon know (17-85 f/2.8 usm is) sell like hot cake but they know too they cant squeez much money from the poor forcing them to buy 17-55, 24-70. let us ask them to be more transparent for poor like us and why they dont make such a lens.its nt fair that 17-55 without L sells for $1030 yet leaving much desired at longer end.where as a 17-85 even at this price tag would have a better solution as a general all purpose lens.
copy and paste this on al forum where u are a member sure the canon ll notice it.
Priteesh, welcome to the Digital Grin.
Feel free to write if you wish. I would suspect that you would not be happy with the cost of such a lens nor happy with the weight of such a lens. It would be a beast.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums