Trying to build intermediate lens setup, help!

DaveK · May 19, 2007

Help! I have read until my brain hurts so I am asking for some sage advise so as to not waste what little money I have to put into lenses.

I have the Rebel XT and have the econo lens kit that came with it (EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6) along with purchasing the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III zoom.

I want to build a reasonable lens list to replace both of these in the hopes of better optics along with better fit of the lens to the shot enviroment. For example I have been very frustrated with low light situations indoors and not being able to capture anyone without blur if they are not sitting still or in flash range.

I have a modest budget to put into this and will probably take it one lens at a time but I do want to spend what is neccessary to at least move into serious hobbyist lenses. Someday I may add a 5D body into my collection but it seems pretty clear that lenses need to be my priority for improvement beyond just improving skill set.

Here are the shot environments I am trying to find lenses for:

1. Indoor Lowlight
2. Landscape
3. Zoom / Action

From my reading, here is my current shopping list but I need help/advice on whether I need all three or other combinations.

INDOOR LOWLIGHT
This one I am the most unsure on as the Telephoto/Zoom lens choice may dictate what I do here, or is that wrong thinking?
Lens Option 1: EF 50mm f/1.8 II -- $80 b&h
Lens Option 2: EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM -- $949 b&h (non IS version?)

LANDSCAPE
Lens Option 1: EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM -- $689 b&h
Lens Option 2: ???

ZOOM/ACTION
Lens Option 1: EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM -- $1,140 b&h
Lens Option 2: EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM $639 -- $639 b&h

Also, not quite sure if I am kidding myself to think I can get good landscapes with the Rebel and the 1.6X crop. Can you help me understand the dynamics here and if I would be wasting money on this body with a landscape lens?

Thank you for your help. I am pretty confused and overwhelmed right now and just want to get a handle on a good intermeidate / well rounded lens setup.

howard · May 20, 2007

Well that's a lot of questions and there's probably a need for more info on your intended use but I'll see if I can get the ball rolling.

OK Low light first, it sounds like you are intending people shots so the faster the lens the better and that probably means f2 or faster. If you are intending use at home you are probaby best with shorter focal lengths except for head and shoulders shots. Do some checks with your kit lens and see what focal lengths you find you need. Also open the lens to it's fastest which is I think f3.5 in the sort of lighting you will want to take shots and make a note of the shutter speed that gives at your intended ISO. Then double the shutter speed and if it wouldn't be enough to stop subject movement it means f2.8 isn't going to be fast enough and you are into primes not zooms.

So you have now worked out if f2.8 is fast enough and if it is one of the 17-50/55 zooms is probably ideal assuming the focal length covers your needs which it probably will. I don't have one of those so anything I say is hearsay but the EFS 17-55 f2.8 IS sounds like the winner or on the lower cost side the Tamron gets good comments.

If you need faster and 50mm is a suitable length then the 50/1.8 is great value and performs well though build quality is not the best. If you want shorter I think the 35mm f2 is a good balance of price and performance. The Sigma 30 f1.4 is faster but some report focus issues and having to exchange or have the recalibrated, good ones are very sharp. If you want even wider the Sigma 20 f1.8 is about as fast as you'll get but not the sharpest lens wide open. Remember that it can be hard to focus in low light and fast lenses have thin DOF wide open.

Landscapes usually mean tripods and stopping the lens down for lots of DOF so I'd try stopping the kit lens to f8 (where it's pretty good) before you run out and spend money. See what focal lengths you use, do you want/need to go wider? Do you need a better lens? If you need to go wider the Canon 10-22 is about as good as you'll get but it's not the cheapest option. If you want a better lens try using the low light lens stopped down and see if the focal length suits your needs. In terms of image quality from the XTI I have no experience but I have printed to 30" wide from my 20D and 10-22 so I doubt you'll have a problem.

Zoom/Action well the lens you mention are excellent but first decide if you need f2.8 if not the new 70-200/4 with IS is getting rave reviews. It depends on the light, how much action and do you need to zoom. All 3 will work well with a 1.4x and retain autofocus but of course you loose i stop.

aktse · May 20, 2007

I think you picked some good choices for wish list.

DaveK wrote:

1. Indoor Lowlight
2. Landscape
3. Zoom / Action

1. Indoor Lowlight -- I picked up the 50 f/1.8 (the fantastic plastic) because it's dirt cheap. You basically can't go wrong with that price... I'll probably pick up the either the 17-55 or 24-70 f/2.8 one of these days. I basically have to decide what I want it for... Portraits, parties, indoor sporting events, inside of pretty buildings. There is also a canon rebate right now on those two lens. There are always better prime portrait lenses out there, but you have to figure out what you really want to shoot.

2. Landscape. I use the canon 10-22mm. I believe there is a similar sigma lens that people also like. I have let others use my 10-22 and they never want to give it back, and before long, they buy one themselves. This is one lens that you'll have to get rid of if you move to a full body camera, but it won't be difficult to sell. I truly love this.

3. Zoom / Action. What type of action are you shooting? Do you really need the IS? Do you need the f/2.8 or would the f/4 work for you? I shoot ice hockey (indoor, very low light, through scratched glass, fast action) and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is the one of the ones that would work for me hand held. This is my favorite piece of glass. It's on my 20D about 60% of the time and I recently put the extender on it!

You basically need to list the type of shots that you want to make within the categories since there isn't a perfect lens for all situations. The 70-200 f/4 is great for soccer in the daytime, but won't be the best for football during dusk. And the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is a steal right now due to the rebates and the BH codes.

I jumped into the dSLR world about a year ago without know much at all. Before long, I spent more than I could ever imagine on my glass. However, I did my research and asked for advice from people who knew more than I did. I knew that I needed to spend money because I wanted to shoot ice hockey.

The funny thing is some people were trying to dump their starter lenses on me so that they could upgrade to the ones that I bought. Like you, they became frustrated in low light situations and various action shots. I can honestly say that even though I will be always lusting after more, I'm very happy with the ones that selected and won't be selling any of them to an idiot to finance another piece of glass.

mrcoons · May 20, 2007

As I was in a similar situation, my (limited) experience says:

Lens Option 2: EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

Lens Option 1: EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (I went with the Canon 17-40mm F/4L but this is probably the better choice)

Lens Option 1: EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (I added a 2x TC to mine an can get great soccer and softball shots with it. Some say to stay away from the 2X but it works for me and means I don't have to lug around my Sigma 80-400mm)

But as I have found it's all what works for you, you are the one taking the photo!

z_28 · May 20, 2007

DaveK, looks as you reached THAT POINT in photographer's life

There is no genuine answer for your problem.
You, me and thousand photogs next got exactly same problem.
Which camera and which lens will be the best ?

10-22 and 17-55 IS are good choices till you will buy 5D and
all process will start again from beginning !

So my advice is - if you are sure about going into full frame country -
buy full frame top quality lenses right now !

Just a suggestion:

1 - EF 35/2 (hidden "L" quality gem)
EF 50/1.8 Mk.II (so good and so cheap, never hurt to have one)

2 - EF 24-70/2.8L (standard weapon - it can cover other needs too)
TS-E 24/3.5L (I'll buy this beast someday too)

3 - EF 70-200/2.8L (with IS if pocket is deep enough)
EF 70-200/4L (same quality as 2.8L, step slower but way cheaper)

Choice is all yours

HiSPL · May 20, 2007

I can't recommend the 50 1.8 enough. It is truly a gem, especially stopped down aroung f4/5.6 where it gets uber sharp.

The 17-40 f4 is also a fantastic lens for the price. For landscape the slower f stop won't hurt much because you'll be on a tripod or in sunlight generally speaking. This lens will fit a 5D as well where as the EF-S lenses won't.

Check out the Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX lens for a great all-rounder. It's really quite good for the price.

There is not a really cheap option for long lenses out there, so I would suggest saving up for the real deal. 70-200 2.8 IS. There is no substitute for this bad boy, unless you want to go with primes. Then you could pick up the 135L and the 200L for about the same coinage. It's a personal choice whether you want the convenience of a zoom, or the marginally better performance of the primes...

Good luck what ever you decide!

DaveK · May 20, 2007

Thank you so much everyone, you have been most helpful while also giving me more questions

First, as I am still learning the ropes I cannot say one particular area of photography interests me more than another, I love experimenting and want to be able to have a lens set that will at least give me the flexibility to shift among the various interests. Pure hobby right now but like I said I want to be wise and make the best choices possible with the funds I have.

Z_28 you bring up an issue that demonstrates my lack of knowledge. I was thinking any Canon lens would fit any Canon body. Can you or someone elaborate a bit for me on this. If I buy full frame lenses with the hope of someday moving to a new body will thos lenses work on my XT as well? Or are they incompatible so I must buy to the body I have and then start over as you say once I go full frame?

As for the list, I am thinking my first move will be to buy the EF 50mm f/1.8 II as it seems to be a no brainer due to the price and will at least address some of my lowlight issues.

As I will be taking a trip west soon and hope to add in some time for Yosemite, Coastal SF area I think my first big purchase will be for the landscape lens. Sounds like the 10-22mm is a winner but again I am now rethinking this per Z_28s comment.

The zoom/action may be on hold for awhile. I was doing quite a bit of soccer and basketball because of my kids interests but they are taking a break from that right now so I have time

Thanks again for all your help and patience. I hate being such a dweeb on stuff like this and feel I should be able to grasp this just by reading other's posts but there is nothing like the personal touch and I sure appreciate Howard, aktse, mrcoons and Z_28 for your shared knowledge and experience.

DaveK · May 20, 2007

Thanks HiSPL as well, your post came as I was writing. Your comment seems to confirm my concern on lens compatibility. Sounds like anything with an "S" after EF is only compatible with the XT while those without will work on both, am I correct?

DaveK · May 20, 2007

Going a bit further is there a good primer online to help novices like myself understand lenses? I have a few photo books and have done some searches but the material always seems to go off on about a hundred rabbit trails of info or it is too broad, I end up more frustrated

I would like to know what lenses work with with Canon SLRs and than a brief explanation over the labeling and best uses.

Again, thanks.

mrcoons · May 20, 2007

DaveK wrote:

Going a bit further is there a good primer online to help novices like myself understand lenses? I have a few photo books and have done some searches but the material always seems to go off on about a hundred rabbit trails of info or it is too broad, I end up more frustrated

I would like to know what lenses work with with Canon SLRs and than a brief explanation over the labeling and best uses.

Again, thanks.

A couple off the top of my head.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm

z_28 · May 20, 2007

DaveK wrote:

Thanks HiSPL as well, your post came as I was writing. Your comment seems to confirm my concern on lens compatibility. Sounds like anything with an "S" after EF is only compatible with the XT while those without will work on both, am I correct?

EF-S lenses will fit 20D/30D and Rebels only.
If you want to buy 5D or any 1D - you need EF lenses excusively.
You can also buy Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc too - but basic rule -
full frame lens for full frame body still take effect.

DaveK · May 20, 2007

mrcoons wrote:

A couple off the top of my head.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm

Great Mark. Thanks so much. Exactly what I was looking for.

DaveK · May 20, 2007

z_28 wrote:

EF-S lenses will fit 20D/30D and Rebels only.
If you want to buy 5D or any 1D - you need EF lenses excusively.
You can also buy Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc too - but basic rule -
full frame lens for full frame body still take effect.

So just to be extra thick on this. The EF lenses will or will not work with the 20D/30D/Rebel bodies?

If the EF can be used on both why buy EF-S which would limit compatibility with the different bodies? Advantages of EF-S to the Rebel that I cannot get with EF lenses?

HiSPL · May 20, 2007

DaveK wrote:

So just to be extra thick on this. The EF lenses will or will not work with the 20D/30D/Rebel bodies?

If the EF can be used on both why buy EF-S which would limit compatibility with the different bodies? Advantages of EF-S to the Rebel that I cannot get with EF lenses?

You can use EF lenses on any Canon autofocus cameras, even film cameras. The EF-S lenses only work on the various Digital Rebels and the 20D and 30D. These are "1.6 field of view crop sensors" (FOVC or simply crop sensors). If you invest in EF lenses you will be able to keep them and use them on any body you wish. If you buy EF-S lenses you will be limited to bodies that use a crop sensor. That may not be a bad thing either. Many people enjoy the extra reach that a crop sensor gives you. Also with a crop sensor you are using the sweet spot of the lens and you don't have to worry too much about vignetting or corner sharpness.

Good Hunting!

DaveK · May 20, 2007

Thanks HiSPL that clears things up for me.

claudermilk · May 22, 2007

I'm a bit late to this (sorry, out for a week shooting till the camera smoked.

).

For indoor/low-light, I will add to the 50/1.8 bandwagon. I have the Mk I version of the lens and even at $150 it's a steal for what you get. It is a no-brainer & everyone ought ot have one they are so good & so cheap.

For landscapes, first off, the Rebel will do just fine. My 20D (alos 1.6 crop) takes perfectly beautiful landscape shots. I prefer the Tokina 12-24/4 over Canon's 10-22/3.5-4.5. I prefer the constant aperture (a personal peeve), the $150-200 savings, and nicer construction. The optics of the two are on par and the resulting images from both are excellent.

I don't think the 24-70 is really a great choice just for landscapes; it's a low-light midrange zoom--IMHO wrong tool for the job in general. This from a 24-70 owner. While I do use it for some landscape shots, I find I prefer to switch to the UWA zoom to get that really-wide-vista look. As an example, I found that this last week for landscapes, while I did use the 24-70 for some shots, I found I was either going to the 12-24 to get the grand-vista shot or get as much foreground in as I could, or I was going to the 70-200 to pick out a distant detail more often. If you need a low-light midrange zoom, the 24-70/2.8 is a fantastic lens. Just make sure it's what you need.

For the longer zoom, low-light action, you cannot go wrong with one of the 70-200 zooms. The 2.8 lenses will obviously fare better in lower light at the cost of weight and a higher price tag. I have used several of the big-dog 70-200/2.8IS lenses many times and finally bought myself the non-IS version. Just an amazing lens & worth the $1100 or $1600. The reputation of the 2.8 lenses is well-earned.

DaveK · May 22, 2007

Thanks so much for still jumping in Chris. I am still weighing all the data and processing. I am convinced that the 50/1.8 is something I should of bought yesterday per the comments and will definitely be adding that to my arsenal.

As my trip out west is upcoming soon, the lens for landscapes is going to be my priority as a first serious buy. I too am of the same opinion that I want a UWA and would enjoy the extra expanse this could allow. This is why my 10-22/3.5-4.5 made my list. Seems others agree to this but I am curious about the Tokina 12-24 compared to the Canon 10-22. On b&h the reveiws were overall positive for the Tokina however one post under the Nikon version had this to say...

"I did come across some views mentioning this lens can have
CA issues on the wide end, especially shooting wide open.
Boy was I in for a shocker. The copy I got had obvious CA
even without 100% crop. It didn't go away until 18mm or
higher and f8 or higher. You simply cannot shot it wide open
wider than 18mm. It is simply unacceptable. On top of it, the
color fidelity is far worse than I expected."

Wondering if you have experienced similar on the Tokina? I would be all for saving the extra $190 if they truly are of similar quality.

Thanks.

claudermilk · May 23, 2007

DaveK wrote:

Thanks so much for still jumping in Chris. I am still weighing all the data and processing. I am convinced that the 50/1.8 is something I should of bought yesterday per the comments and will definitely be adding that to my arsenal.

As my trip out west is upcoming soon, the lens for landscapes is going to be my priority as a first serious buy. I too am of the same opinion that I want a UWA and would enjoy the extra expanse this could allow. This is why my 10-22/3.5-4.5 made my list. Seems others agree to this but I am curious about the Tokina 12-24 compared to the Canon 10-22. On b&h the reveiws were overall positive for the Tokina however one post under the Nikon version had this to say...

"I did come across some views mentioning this lens can have
CA issues on the wide end, especially shooting wide open.
Boy was I in for a shocker. The copy I got had obvious CA
even without 100% crop. It didn't go away until 18mm or
higher and f8 or higher. You simply cannot shot it wide open
wider than 18mm. It is simply unacceptable. On top of it, the
color fidelity is far worse than I expected."

Wondering if you have experienced similar on the Tokina? I would be all for saving the extra $190 if they truly are of similar quality.

Thanks.

I have not. I actually borrowed a 10-22 & used it for a bit before buying the 12-24 and prefer the Tokina. IMHO image quality is about equal. I much prefer the build of the Tokina--it reminds me of my L lenses, while the 10-22 reminds me of the 50/1.8 Mk II or 18-55 kit lens. I also prefer the constant aperture of the Tokina. Those are personal niggles that really don't affect the image, but they do make using the lens more enjoyable to me.

I wouldn't avoid it based on 1 of 15 reviews on B&H (just added my own, so make that 1 of 16

). That tells me either a) the one guy is one of those never satisfied hyper-picky gear nuts that would spend all day whining about a 1Ds Mk II's faults or b) he got a defective copy. From all my research on the UWA zooms across Canon & Nikon, it gets down to the Canon 10-22 and Tokina 12-24 as the very best available & a tough pick between those two based on image quality.

I am very happy with my Tokina and have no regrets. It's a solid lens that produces great images.

DaveK · May 23, 2007

claudermilk wrote:

I am very happy with my Tokina and have no regrets. It's a solid lens that produces great images.

Thanks Chris. I was of the same opinion on the one negative and your reply helps put that in perspective. I hope to take the plunge by end of week on the purchase so the feedback has gone a long way in making me more comfortable in my thought process. Thanks again.

DaveK · June 16, 2007

DaveK wrote:

Help! From my reading, here is my current shopping list but I need help/advice on whether I need all three or other combinations.

INDOOR LOWLIGHT
This one I am the most unsure on as the Telephoto/Zoom lens choice may dictate what I do here, or is that wrong thinking?
Lens Option 1: EF 50mm f/1.8 II -- $80 b&h
Lens Option 2: EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM -- $949 b&h (non IS version?)

LANDSCAPE
Lens Option 1: EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM -- $689 b&h
Lens Option 2: ???

ZOOM/ACTION
Lens Option 1: EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM -- $1,140 b&h
Lens Option 2: EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM $639 -- $639 b&h

I know it has been some time since I posted the origional question but felt it may be of some benefit to others looking along similar lines. First I ended up spending way more than I should of but it was just too hard to choose only one or two items. I will be on a photo diet for some time now and learning to make due with my current lineup.

As an fyi I scoured this forum along with photo.net and a few other review sites before making my final choices. I would be the first to say there were a few other options I could of gone with but in the end you make the best educated guess on what you will be pleased with and move on.

Lenses purchased:
EF 50mm f/1.8 II
EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (Almost went with Tokina but found a good used Canon.)
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (Loving this lens already.)

Other extras:
*Manfrotto 3021 Pro Tripod with with 322RC2 Grip Action Ballhead (This puppy is rock solid and the grip action ballhead is just sweet.)
*Tenba Shootout Backpack (I could not be more pleased. Solid protection, versatile and right combination of features. Very responsive personal service as well to my questions and sending of additional photos not on the web for their bags.)

If anyone is in my same shoes, I believe you will be very happy with these selections as well.

Future wish list still includes a 1.4 converter to give further reach on the 70-200. This would gives me an affordable and quality acceptable reach for those rare occassions. And possibly another lens to fill the gap between the 10-22 and 70-200 someday but for now the 50 mm and yes my 18-55 kit lens will work for me.

Hope this helps.

ziggy53 · June 16, 2007

DaveK wrote:

...

Lenses purchased:
EF 50mm f/1.8 II
EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (Almost went with Tokina but found a good used Canon.)
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (Loving this lens already.)

Other extras:
*Manfrotto 3021 Pro Tripod with with 322RC2 Grip Action Ballhead (This puppy is rock solid and the grip action ballhead is just sweet.)
*Tenba Shootout Backpack (I could not be more pleased. Solid protection, versatile and right combination of features. Very responsive personal service as well to my questions and sending of additional photos not on the web for their bags.)

...

Dave,

Some excellent choices in equipment, that should serve you well. Congratulations and thanks for sharing your thought process with us.

claudermilk · June 16, 2007

DaveK wrote:

I know it has been some time since I posted the origional question but felt it may be of some benefit to others looking along similar lines. First I ended up spending way more than I should of but it was just too hard to choose only one or two items. I will be on a photo diet for some time now and learning to make due with my current lineup.

As an fyi I scoured this forum along with photo.net and a few other review sites before making my final choices. I would be the first to say there were a few other options I could of gone with but in the end you make the best educated guess on what you will be pleased with and move on.

Lenses purchased:
EF 50mm f/1.8 II
EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (Almost went with Tokina but found a good used Canon.)
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (Loving this lens already.)

Other extras:
*Manfrotto 3021 Pro Tripod with with 322RC2 Grip Action Ballhead (This puppy is rock solid and the grip action ballhead is just sweet.)
*Tenba Shootout Backpack (I could not be more pleased. Solid protection, versatile and right combination of features. Very responsive personal service as well to my questions and sending of additional photos not on the web for their bags.)

If anyone is in my same shoes, I believe you will be very happy with these selections as well.

Future wish list still includes a 1.4 converter to give further reach on the 70-200. This would gives me an affordable and quality acceptable reach for those rare occassions. And possibly another lens to fill the gap between the 10-22 and 70-200 someday but for now the 50 mm and yes my 18-55 kit lens will work for me.

Hope this helps.

Excellent choices.

When you find a great deal on a used lens, sometimes you just have to jump on it.

Those should keep you happy for a long time. A mid-range zoom should be fairly easy to choose (something along the lines of 24-70, 24-105, 28-70, etc) when the time comes.

Vlad Ort · June 17, 2007

claudermilk wrote:

Excellent choices. When you find a great deal on a used lens, sometimes you just have to jump on it. Those should keep you happy for a long time. A mid-range zoom should be fairly easy to choose (something along the lines of 24-70, 24-105, 28-70, etc) when the time comes.

Claudermilk,

im in the same shoes as DaveK was, untill he made up his mind (wisely I must add). I was wondering why haven't mentioning the 17-55 IS, given that you are a 20/30D user? Have you had any experience with it?

I have a 30D, bought it a month ago, together with 50 1.8 and Tamron 18-200. I prefer shooting wildlife, sports and landscapes, so for my trip next month I will need a good tele and either a Canon 10-22 or Tokina 12-24 (I'm leaning towards the latter). But I'm wondering whether it's a better idea to start with a normal range lens first (17-55) and if it's a good idea to be without it (if I choose to sell my Tamron).

claudermilk · June 18, 2007

Vlad Ort wrote:

Claudermilk,

im in the same shoes as DaveK was, untill he made up his mind (wisely I must add). I was wondering why haven't mentioning the 17-55 IS, given that you are a 20/30D user? Have you had any experience with it?

I have a 30D, bought it a month ago, together with 50 1.8 and Tamron 18-200. I prefer shooting wildlife, sports and landscapes, so for my trip next month I will need a good tele and either a Canon 10-22 or Tokina 12-24 (I'm leaning towards the latter). But I'm wondering whether it's a better idea to start with a normal range lens first (17-55) and if it's a good idea to be without it (if I choose to sell my Tamron).

I have no experience with it. My lens lineup is: Tokina 12-24/4, Canon 24-70/2.8L, 50/1.8 Mk I, 70-200/2.8L. The 17-55IS came out after I already had the 24-70 and hada good idea of the rest of my lineup, so my interest was minimal. I also have the much-maligned kit 18-55 and really didn't find the range fit my shooting needs well.

I can certainly vouch for the Tokina, just see my earlier comments.

Really, either the Canon or Tokina are very good choices.

mrcoons · June 18, 2007

Vlad Ort wrote:

I was wondering why haven't mentioning the 17-55 IS, given that you are a 20/30D user? Have you had any experience with it?

I just used my 17-55 IS for the 'first' time at a play I was photographing. I found it to be a wonderful lens. Much better AF than my Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 and almost silent by comparision to the Tamron. The 2 reasons I changed.

The IQ is as good as advertised also. Here is an example:

Vlad Ort · June 20, 2007

claudermilk wrote:

IThe 17-55IS came out after I already had the 24-70 and hada good idea of the rest of my lineup, so my interest was minimal. I also have the much-maligned kit 18-55 and really didn't find the range fit my shooting needs well.

Do you find 24-70 to be a good low-light lens? I'm wondering if Range vs. 3 handheld stops is a good tradeoff here. I guess another question is - how much do you use the 55-70mm range? Thanx for your reply.

Vlad Ort · June 20, 2007

mrcoons wrote:

I just used my 17-55 IS for the 'first' time at a play I was photographing. I found it to be a wonderful lens. Much better AF than my Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 and almost silent by comparision to the Tamron. The 2 reasons I changed.

The IQ is as good as advertised also. Here is an example:

Did you shoot this hand-held? Looks great. Do you find that IS really helps compared to the Tamron? Tamron seems to have excellent reviews, plus it costs much less, but already having experience with it (18-200), I dont want to go there again. Speed, sharpness, and there's something about colours, maybe that's what they call bokeh, in addition to other things...

claudermilk · June 20, 2007

Vlad Ort wrote:

claudermilk wrote:

IThe 17-55IS came out after I already had the 24-70 and hada good idea of the rest of my lineup, so my interest was minimal. I also have the much-maligned kit 18-55 and really didn't find the range fit my shooting needs well.

Do you find 24-70 to be a good low-light lens? I'm wondering if Range vs. 3 handheld stops is a good tradeoff here. I guess another question is - how much do you use the 55-70mm range? Thanx for your reply.

Yup. f2.8 is as fast as a zoom gets, so that's a large part of why I chose the lens. Of course, the 17-55/2.8 IS and 24-105/4 both were not available at the time. What I shoot, the IS is of minimal usefulness, so real lens speed weighs much heavier than the theoretical stops you gain with IS. Remember IS accounts for camera movement but not subject movement.

I use the 55-70 range all the time. I actually use the full range of the lens and would like a bit more on either end at times...but what zoom owner doesn't?

mrcoons · June 20, 2007

Vlad Ort wrote:

Did you shoot this hand-held? Looks great. Do you find that IS really helps compared to the Tamron? Tamron seems to have excellent reviews, plus it costs much less, but already having experience with it (18-200), I dont want to go there again. Speed, sharpness, and there's something about colours, maybe that's what they call bokeh, in addition to other things...

Yes this was handheld. I shot this play with 2 cameras. My primary camera had the 70-200mm F/2.8L (non-IS) which was on my monopod. The 17-55 was on my second camera. The IS is most helpful in this sort of setting. The producers of the play liked my work enough that they have asked me to come back next month and shoot the next production.

mrcoons · June 20, 2007

claudermilk wrote:

I use the 55-70 range all the time. I actually use the full range of the lens and would like a bit more on either end at times...but what zoom owner doesn't?

How true!

S. Horton · June 20, 2007

Chart, links to reviews, including some 3rd pty lenses you might consider, espeically on the wide end: http://www.eflens.com

Lens IQ testing, very extensive, technical, but you can see the difference in results here (well, lab results) - Link to get you started.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=9&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=397&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

IMO get the best glass you can afford, because you'll own it longer than the body.

BTW, this is my first dgrin post -- smuggy member, finally caved and joined this forum!

Trying to build intermediate lens setup, help!

Comments