Lens reviews just doubled my "budget"...

ChuckM

I'm trying to find a new "vacation" lens. Ideally, I'd like one lens that would work for most vacation shots. Typically landscapes and architectural shots. Maybe an occasional one of the wife and I.

I was originally thinking something like Canon's 17-85 4-5.6 IS. I currently have the kit lens (Rebel Xt) and Canon's 55-200 4-5.6. The 17-85 would give me a little more reach than the kit (which I typically use now for vacation pics). However, it doesn't seem to get much love when reading reviews.

Here's where the frustration comes in...

It seems like every review I read ends up comparing the lens to L or much faster glass. "nice lens, but it's not L and I wish it was faster"

So, now I'm thinking about the 17-55 2.8 IS as a replacement.

I've just doubled the amount I was going to spend. :scratch

It seems well liked. The 2.8 would be new for me and could create some new creative opportunities for me (yeah, I'm selling it to myself).

Sorry about the rant.

Any thoughts or recommendations would be appreciated.

z_28

Maybe Tamron (or Tokina) 17-50/2.8 will be right for you ?
They are good lenses and you will save a lot of money for other purchase.

leaforte

I use the 17-85 daily, and I really like it. If you have the light, I would recommend it for the price. And you can always pick up the 50mm 1.8 for about $80 to shoot indoors/low light conditions. Others will probably have more sound advice, since my experience with a most of the popular lenses is quite limited, but just my two cents...I really enjoy shooting with the 17-85.

eyusuf

ChuckM wrote:

I'm trying to find a new "vacation" lens. Ideally, I'd like one lens that would work for most vacation shots. Typically landscapes and architectural shots. Maybe an occasional one of the wife and I.

I was originally thinking something like Canon's 17-85 4-5.6 IS. I currently have the kit lens (Rebel Xt) and Canon's 55-200 4-5.6. The 17-85 would give me a little more reach than the kit (which I typically use now for vacation pics). However, it doesn't seem to get much love when reading reviews.

Here's where the frustration comes in...

It seems like every review I read ends up comparing the lens to L or much faster glass. "nice lens, but it's not L and I wish it was faster"

So, now I'm thinking about the 17-55 2.8 IS as a replacement.

I've just doubled the amount I was going to spend.

It seems well liked. The 2.8 would be new for me and could create some new creative opportunities for me (yeah, I'm selling it to myself).

Sorry about the rant.

Any thoughts or recommendations would be appreciated.

i would say just stick with your original plan.
17-85 is a nice lens.
it all depends on what you shoot; for vacation all-purpose lens, the 17-85 will serve the purpose well. dont need to spend more to get the 17-55. use the money toward your vacation. plenty of time to upgrade to the 17-55 if you find out (at much later time) that it no longer serves your needs.

ChuckM

Thanks for the help folks. I'm thinking I may go for the 17-85. I don't know. Part of me thinks "just buy the good stuff first" as opposed to upgrading slowly. I'd hate to buy it and end up upgrading in 6 months anyway. I'm going to see if I can find a place to rent one or both and take a test drive.

The 1.8 50 sounds fun. I'll look into that.

eyusuf

ChuckM wrote:

Thanks for the help folks. I'm thinking I may go for the 17-85. I don't know. Part of me thinks "just buy the good stuff first" as opposed to upgrading slowly. I'd hate to buy it and end up upgrading in 6 months anyway. I'm going to see if I can find a place to rent one or both and take a test drive.

The 1.8 50 sounds fun. I'll look into that.

like i said, if you just use the lens for regular vacation shots then 17-85 is more than sufficient.
if you want to do a lot of interior architectural shots then i think money is best spent for a good tripod (not the cheapo ones you can get from bestbuy or walmart).

Tee Why

I'd recommend a Tamron 17-50.
For me, the 17-85 has a bit too much distortion, CA, and corner softness at the 17mm end.

Consider looking at photozone.de and photodo.com for reviews of many of the lenses.

My buddy Jojo has many Canon mount lenses tested/compared so you may want to look here as well.

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/root

Scott_Quier

The 17-55 f/2.8 is a great lens if you can find one (I have one and you can't have it ).

The EF 24-105 f/4L IS is in the same price range, offers the length you mentioned liking. It is not quite as wide as the 17 - but it is an "L". I have one and love it. If you keep the kit lens and use it outdoors, stopped down a stop or two, it will perform quite nicely for those times when you want something a bit wider than 24mm.

Just a thought.

Ric Grupe

Sounds to me that you have the right idea for your purposes. I have had the 17-85 for years and am quite pleased with it. During that time I've changed my gear a few times and still have the 17-85.

For vacation type shots, I use it and the 70-300 DO IS a lot. 17mm thru 300mm is quite a range for two relatively small lenses.

jonh68

I can't comment on the Canon lenses, but I can comment on your predicament. If you go on vacation with the purpose of photography first, get the best lens you can afford.

If you are going to actually enjoy the vacation and you want better than snapshot but don't want to spend time with the camera, get as much reach in one lens of the range you shoot most even if there are compromises. Spend the money on the vacation.

ChuckM

Scott_Quier wrote:

The 17-55 f/2.8 is a great lens if you can find one (I have one and you can't have it ).

The EF 24-105 f/4L IS is in the same price range, offers the length you mentioned liking. It is not quite as wide as the 17 - but it is an "L". I have one and love it. If you keep the kit lens and use it outdoors, stopped down a stop or two, it will perform quite nicely for those times when you want something a bit wider than 24mm.

Just a thought.

Oh great, that's all I need. Something else to think about.

Seriously, thanks again everybody.

I think I'll start with a tripod... (another can of worms)

Scott_Quier

ChuckM wrote:

I think I'll start with a tripod... (another can of worms)

That's just putting the pain of decision 'til tomorrow. I feel your pain. I think everyone here has gone through that at least once. But, it's so much fun!!!!

eyusuf

i would recommend slik 700dx tripod. i think it is not too heavy but sturdy. excellent for a travel system. it is also not expensive. check amazon for this tripod.

Tommyboy

ChuckM wrote:

Thanks for the help folks. I'm thinking I may go for the 17-85.

You know what's wrong with the 17-85?

Nothin'.

Look at my site. 95% of the photos were taken with this lens. It has outstanding performance (I look at photos, not lens charts) and is a perfect range.

colourbox

My default lens is the 24-105 f/4L, but I went on a short trip this winter and wanted to travel really light with one lens. I took my 17-55 f/2.8 because winter days are short and dark, and it was a terrific lens that could function in any light. I had to go without the 105mm reach of the 24-105 f/4L, but I could live with that on this particular trip.

And either of those lenses blows away the lens I originally started with and became increasingly dissatisfied with: The 17-85 IS that can't be any faster than f/5.6 when zoomed in. That lens is a constant source of frustration in low light.

eyusuf

colourbox wrote:

And either of those lenses blows away the lens I originally started with and became increasingly dissatisfied with: The 17-85 IS that can't be any faster than f/5.6 when zoomed in. That lens is a constant source of frustration in low light.

bump the ISO up. that's one of the reasons people using DSLR, right?

claudermilk

I understand the frustration. At some point you run into the ISO ceiling on the camera & still need more speed--thus the need for f2.8 constant. BTDT

glassandgear.com

I have to second the 24-105 f/4L if you can deal with a bit less on the wide end of things. I brought the lens with me on my honeymoon to Hawaii and with a few exceptions it never left the camera. I will say the 16-35 I brought with me as well did come in handy on the road to Hana. The 17-55 f/2.8L IS is also a great lens.

If you really aren't looking to break the bank though I'd say go with the 17-85. From my experience it really isn't as bad as some people make it out to be. Certainly if you're comparing it to some higher end glass you'd notice a difference but for everyday shooting it should be fine. One exception would be if you were doing a lot of low light shooting.

Jason

TylerW

When I'm traveling and have some time for photography, my 17-40 f/4 L practically lives on my camera. Like the OP I'm looking for landscapes, streetscapes and architectural, so with that in mind I'm not really looking for reach. What I am looking for is stonking performance that I don't have to work hard at to get, and this one delivers in spades. luscious contrast and color, sharp wide open, tack sharp at 5.6, and wide enough that very low speed handhelds are possible. Its an L, sure, but at least its one of the cheaper ones.

Other go-tos are my tammy 28-75 for street and people shots, or my 50mm f/1.8 when the lights go out, but 90% of my travel shots are with the 17-40. I just spent a weekend in Oslo (I'll have a post up in journeys soon, I swear!) and i got many great shots from this piece of kit.

colourbox

eyusuf wrote:

bump the ISO up. that's one of the reasons people using DSLR, right?

Right. So I bump it up to 1600 (the max on my Rebel XT, not a very old camera) and it's not enough.

For context, I know that in some low light situations my 50mm f/1.8 will do quite well at 800 or 1600. But the f/4-5.6 of the 17-85 is often way too much of a difference for ISO to make up for, unless I had one of the newer and extremely expensive Canon or Nikon bodies that do well past 1600. So my solution for something wider than the 50mm 1.8 was to buy the 17-55 f/2.8 and when I'm already at ISO 1600, this lens can do the job where the 17-85 falls far short.

eyusuf

colourbox wrote:

Right. So I bump it up to 1600 (the max on my Rebel XT, not a very old camera) and it's not enough.

For context, I know that in some low light situations my 50mm f/1.8 will do quite well at 800 or 1600. But the f/4-5.6 of the 17-85 is often way too much of a difference for ISO to make up for, unless I had one of the newer and extremely expensive Canon or Nikon bodies that do well past 1600. So my solution for something wider than the 50mm 1.8 was to buy the 17-55 f/2.8 and when I'm already at ISO 1600, this lens can do the job where the 17-85 falls far short.

just curious what you were shooting at ISO 1600? people or object?
it probably gives you a hint that you need a tripod anyway...:D
also what is not enought? shutter speed too slow?

the picture below was taken at ISO 1600, 1/25s, 200mm, handheld. i was using XT as well, like you are. i printed it up to canvas 24x20 and it is fine.

rpcrowe

I love the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens...
It is a great lens. But, it is expensive at almost double the price of the 17-85mm IS. However, the 17-55mm offers a lot of quality and is extremely versatile.

I used to carry three bodies with three lenses (12-24mm Tokina f/4, 24-70mm Canon f/2.8L and 70-200mm f/4L IS) on three bodies. This is an excellent combination of great lenses that provides an unbroken focal length of from 12-200mm with top-notch imagery. However, it was a very heavy combo.

I wanted a single lens that would cover a lot of photo opportunities when I couldn't or wouldn't carry my three body outfit. I chose the 17-55mm f/2.8L and I am very happy with the decision. Lately, I find myself using the 17-55 and 70-200mm lenses. The two body/lens outfit is certainly lighter than my three body/lens combination.

With IS on both lenses, I can shoot hand held in most venues. In fact I have not used my 50mm f/1.8 Mark-I lens since getting the 17-55. The f/2.8 with IS makes this a great available light glass.

colourbox

eyusuf wrote:

just curious what you were shooting at ISO 1600? people or object?
it probably gives you a hint that you need a tripod anyway...:D
also what is not enought? shutter speed too slow?
the picture below was taken at ISO 1600, 1/25s, 200mm, handheld. i was using XT as well, like you are. i printed it up to canvas 24x20 and it is fine.

Ah, well, you are outside. I like to shoot handheld candids of people, who are moving, indoors, in low artificial light, at typical indoor light levels. Think of a visit to a family's home, or a wedding dinner. Tripod no helpy (people are constantly moving). Acquiring a 580EX has helped, but sometimes none of the available walls or ceilings is close enough or neutral enough for a decent bounce, or I don't want to disturb the atmosphere with a series of major light blasts, so it's back to the fast lens. The fast lens is what really lets me get to 1/30th of a second or better.

If they were posed shots, or objects, of course I could put it on a tripod, set it to ISO 100, and not worry about it. But the need is to freeze subject movement, and tripods and IS don't do that. When the camera is already at its highest ISO and the shutter speed is still not fast enough, switching to a lens with a bigger aperture is the shot saver.

I should also add that I wanted to have nice, narrow depth of field for these candids, but when you're out around f/5.6 on the 17-85, the background is too sharp. Once again, the constant f/2.8 on the 17-55 solves the problem.