I know it's been covered before, but need glass help

TaDa

I know that this has been done before, but as many people have advised me to do on here, stop buying equipment and learn what to do with what you have. Well, I did take about a month and read every book that I could get my hands on. I kept shooting to learn what the books were talking about, and am starting to feel a lot more comfortable.

Other things that I've read on here is that "it depends" when people ask what their next piece of glass should be. What I shoot the most of are portaits of my son in the house. One thing that I've realized through it all is that the inside of my house is pretty dark. Granted that my 580ex helps light the place up, but for those times when I want to use some of the ambient lighting, or one of those impromptu sessions where I don't want to reach for the flash, I always fall back on my 50mm 1.4. Shooting with my kit lens (EF-S 18-55 3.5-5.6) really leaves a lot of dark pictures when I don't use the flash.

So I guess what I'm asking for is advice for a piece of glass to replace my kit lens. I love my 50mm and I love my 70-300.

I was looking at the 17-40L, but at F/4, is that going to really help with the lighting situation.

I was looking at the 24-70, and I'm sure the F/2.8 would help, but do you think that I will really miss the wide side of my kit? Also have read great things about the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 here.

Also, was looking at the 17-55 IS USM, but at that kind of money, does it matter whether or not it's an L?

Elaine

I'd recommend the 17-55 2.8 IS. I have it and love it! From what I understand, if the build quality was more robust (as an L would be), many folks would consider it to be L quality, because the images it produces are that nice. It is excellent in low light and the IS makes handheld shots at slow speeds very possible. I don't think you'd be disappointed.

Glenn NK

There are supporters of the Canon 17/55, and it has its detractors. So be it.

That being said, the supporters tend to be owners, and the detractors tend to not be owners.

I'm an owner - next to my 100 macro which gets used a great deal for flower closeups/macros, my 17/55 is my favourite lens.

I just got home from my grand-daughter's fifth birthday party. I used it for most of the shots because of its speed (f/2.8), and it's superb IQ. Oh, it took about 100 of 164 of the images, the 24/105 was used with onboard flash for the others, but I didn't need flash with the 17/55.

evoryware

I'd still like to try the 17-55 2.8 IS but it was out of stock when I bought my 24-70. B&H I guess ran out of them at the end of the Canon rebate, which they extended the day after I went to buy. lol. You may miss the wide end but how many pics do you currently take on the wide end?

James S

I own the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and it is perhaps the best all around lens in my bag. I use it more than any other and it is great for low light portraits. I once owned the 17-40 F/4L and ended up not liking it as much as the Tamron so i sold it. I can't speak for the 17-55mm Canon becasue I have never owned it but IMO I don't think you will miss that wide angle of the kit lens much nce you use that lens. And price wise you can't go wrong with the $300 Tamron.

gus

TaDa wrote:

I always fall back on my 50mm 1.4. Shooting with my kit lens (EF-S 18-55 3.5-5.6) really leaves a lot of dark pictures when I don't use the flash.

Im going to be brutally blunt here because i think its needed. Do you truly & honestly understand what you have written above here ?

ie...do you honestly understand what f/stop is all about & how it works or are you reiterating lines you have read/heard. You appear to be in self conflict but at the same time appear to understand/not understand what you are talking about.

TaDa

gus wrote:

Im going to be brutally blunt here because i think its needed. Do you truly & honestly understand what you have written above here ?

ie...do you honestly understand what f/stop is all about & how it works or are you reiterating lines you have read/heard. You appear to be in self conflict but at the same time appear to understand/not understand what you are talking about.

When I get the 50mm down to 1.4, I get great pictures with great depth of field of my boy in my living room. When I stop it down to 2.8 or so, the pictures are still great. When I take the lens to f/8+, my pictures start to become fuzzy because of the decreased shutter speed. So to answer your question, I am looking for a low aperture lens because I like the depth of field that it helps create in my low light situation. The problem is, with the aperture at 1.4, when I attach the 580ex, it over exposes everything, so I have to stop down a bunch and I lose the depth of field that I am trying to create even though it greatly helps with the blur.

I am definitely still new to this, so any advice would be greatly appreciated.

SloYerRoll

While you have the beginning understand of aperture. There's still more to learn. While aperture is dependent on aperture DOF is also dependent on other variables. Your depth of field decreases as you move closer to your subject and increases as you move further away.
From any given location, magnification also affects depth of field. If you use a longer focal length without changing your position, you will see a smaller section of your subject, and depth of field will also be correspondingly smaller for any given aperture.

Once you really wrap your head around this. You'll see that your options for glass is greatly increased since you can control DOF more than you realize.

(Knowledge gleaned from LiquidAir)

TaDa

I guess I'm talking purely to bokeh. I love the shots that my 50 gets me because I want to see his awesome face, and not necessarily the gigantic mess of toys that he has thrown all over the room (though it does start to look like modern art to have his face and the background behind him being all yellow, red, blue and green blur:D)

Glenn NK

Could you tell me what bokeh is please?

TaDa

Glenn NK wrote:

Could you tell me what bokeh is please?

I feel like this thread has turned into a quiz TaDa thread .

Bokeh - From Wiki - Bokeh (from the Japanese boke ぼけ, "blur") is a photographic term referring to the appearance of out-of-focus areas in an image produced by a camera lens.[1] Different lens bokeh produces different aesthetic qualities in out-of-focus backgrounds, which are often used to reduce distractions and emphasize the primary subject.

So, from what I've been hearing back so far from you folks, can't really go wrong with the 17-55 IS USM.

Scott_Quier

With all respect to Gus (and I do respect him huge), I'm going to assume you've done your research, you've gained some experience and a better understanding of your photographic goals, and have some idea of the mechanics of photography - basically, that you have an idea of what you want.

So, that having been said, I would strongly encourage you to the 17/55. You asked about it not being an L lens. Well, yeah, but rumor has it that the only reason it doesn't wear a red ring is because it is also an EF-S and Canon won't/doesn't put the red ring on anything that will not work on a full-frame camera. Being that as it may, this is a stellar lens and I don't think you can go wrong with it. If you look at my profile, you'll see that I have some duplication along most of the focal length range provided by this lens. But, this lens is usually the one that I pull out of kit and put on my camera - I just like it that much.

TaDa

Scott_Quier wrote:

With all respect to Gus (and I do respect him huge), I'm going to assume you've done your research, you've gained some experience and a better understanding of your photographic goals, and have some idea of the mechanics of photography - basically, that you have an idea of what you want.

So, that having been said, I would strongly encourage you to the 17/55. You asked about it not being an L lens. Well, yeah, but rumor has it that the only reason it doesn't wear a red ring is because it is also an EF-S and Canon won't/doesn't put the red ring on anything that will not work on a full-frame camera. Being that as it may, this is a stellar lens and I don't think you can go wrong with it. If you look at my profile, you'll see that I have some duplication along most of the focal length range provided by this lens. But, this lens is usually the one that I pull out of kit and put on my camera - I just like it that much.

Thank you sir. Noticed in your profile that you have both the 17-55 and the Tamron 28-75, so recommending the 17-55 makes me feel better that I would miss the wide side of the lens over the 55-70 range.

I respect everyone on this board. I was not offended by Gus' comment at all. I am, by no means, even ready to be considered an amateur photographer. I am just reading and shooting and seeing what I like and don't like. For my main purpose of taking photos, I just know that the kit lens isn't working for me. The pictures are coming out with no bokeh, they're coming out darker than others, etc. I'm guessing that the IS on the 17-55 will also help for when I need to stop down to F/8+, that it will help with the hand shaking and I won't get as many blurry pictures.

Glenn NK

Scott_Quier wrote:

So, that having been said, I would strongly encourage you to the 17/55. You asked about it not being an L lens. Well, yeah, but rumor has it that the only reason it doesn't wear a red ring is because it is also an EF-S and Canon won't/doesn't put the red ring on anything that will not work on a full-frame camera. Being that as it may, this is a stellar lens and I don't think you can go wrong with it. If you look at my profile, you'll see that I have some duplication along most of the focal length range provided by this lens. But, this lens is usually the one that I pull out of kit and put on my camera - I just like it that much.

The 17/55 is my favourite lens, but I wouldn't classify its build quality as "L".

The optics are certainly "L" quality. There have been reports of the IS failing prematurely on this lens, although mine is still working well.

As for bokeh, I must confess (and apologize) that my question about bokeh wasn't entirely forthright, as I'm quite familiar with the term. If anyone wants to know more about it (I wouldn't suggest Wikipedia as a reference) the following links are quite informative:

This first one is actually a Bokeh Test, although once one reads it over, the term bokeh will be a bit clearer. All lenses have bokeh, some just better than others.

http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm


This second reference differentiates (I believe correctly) between blur and bokeh - all lenses will create blur in the zones beyond sharp focus - bokeh refers to the quality of the blur. The background blur of some lenses is downright dreadful, whereas other lenses produce pleasing blur which would be good bokeh. It seems that Bokeh is also somewhat subjective.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh.html


The third reference is for opticians (it's quite detailed and requires some knowledge of optics terms)::D

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/bokeh.html

TaDa

Thanks for the links Glenn. Will be good reading.

I must admit that I LOVE the bokeh that the 50mm 1.4 helps create.

Also, thanks for the heads up on the IS in the lens. I plan on buying this one new as soon as B&H gets them back in stock since people are selling them used for more than they go for new, and with the rebate, I will be buying the US version so I should be good for at least a year.

claudermilk

One bit of information I haven't seen yet is budget. I am presuming it's about $1k from the lenses discussed. On the whole, it sounds like the 17-55/2.8IS is the way to go for you. I have a 24-70/2.8L & love it, but it can be a bit long indoors on a crop camera.

TaDa

Yep, looking at spending right around 1k. Last couple days I've been playing with the kit lens and most of my shots are closer to the 55mm point than the 17 (I really like to take face/head shots), and considering how big of a mess he makes 2 minutes after we clean the room, most of my shots have been up close instead of wide. I think I may end up renting both the 17-55 and the 24-70 to see which I would use and like more, before dropping the 1k on the glass and then regretting it.

Scott_Quier

TaDa wrote:

I think I may end up renting both the 17-55 and the 24-70 to see which I would use and like more, before dropping the 1k on the glass and then regretting it.

I think this is a very good first step as it appears you are undecided. A couple of hundred dollars to keep from making a $1K mistake makes sense to me and a better path (from a karma standpoint) than "buying" both and returning the one that you don't want.

TaDa

Scott_Quier wrote:

I think this is a very good first step as it appears you are undecided. A couple of hundred dollars to keep from making a $1K mistake makes sense to me and a better path (from a karma standpoint) than "buying" both and returning the one that you don't want.

Heh, looks like karma be damned. I didn't realize renting was so pricey. Think I may be going the buy both and return the one I don't want route. Now just have to wait for B&H to get the 17-55 in stock.

claudermilk

I agree with Scott. Renting to make sure is a good idea. With your budget, either lens works. With you shooting info, I'm now thinking perhaps the 24-70 might be better--but then I'm biased as a very happy 24-70 owner (it's on my camera 90% of the time).

I am in a similar situation with longer glass (200-500mm range). I have several options I'm looking at and on paper they are so close that the <5% difference in performance won't make a difference. It's going to cost a couple hundred dollars to rent them all over time, but that's what I'm doing so I only buy once. So far I've eliminated the 100-400 from contention as I simply do not like how it handles--wouldn't have known that without renting first and it could have been a $1400 mistake.

TaDa

Just wanted to give you all a quick update. Going against some of the advice in this thread, I went out and bought a used Tamron 28-75 2.8 to find out what my sweet spot was as far as range of shooting. Results were that I ended up hardly ever taking the Tammy off of my camera. Most of my shots were in the 50-75mm range, and I only took my 18-55 lens out of the bag once to cover some wide shots. So this has me convinced that for a traditional zoom, I would miss the 55-70 range a ton more than the 17-28. Also, another thing that has concerned the hell out of me recently are all the threads that I've been reading of the 17-55IS's issues with dust, some slight wobble when it's extended, etc. This really scared me that I was going to be dropping $1k plus on a lens that has pretty poor build quality (once again, this is just from what I've read). I absolutely adore my Tammy, but it can seriously hunt in low light. One of my photog friends is/was actually looking at getting rid of his 24-70L because he's moving to all primes, and I was able to snatch it up for $875.

So long story short, my lens upgrade is the Canon 24-70L and I am soooo excited to get it when he gets back from vacation clap

ziggy53

TaDa wrote:

Just wanted to give you all a quick update. Going against some of the advice in this thread, I went out and bought a used Tamron 28-75 2.8 to find out what my sweet spot was as far as range of shooting. Results were that I ended up hardly ever taking the Tammy off of my camera. Most of my shots were in the 50-75mm range, and I only took my 18-55 lens out of the bag once to cover some wide shots. So this has me convinced that for a traditional zoom, I would miss the 55-70 range a ton more than the 17-28. Also, another thing that has concerned the hell out of me recently are all the threads that I've been reading of the 17-55IS's issues with dust, some slight wobble when it's extended, etc. This really scared me that I was going to be dropping $1k plus on a lens that has pretty poor build quality (once again, this is just from what I've read). I absolutely adore my Tammy, but it can seriously hunt in low light. One of my photog friends is/was actually looking at getting rid of his 24-70L because he's moving to all primes, and I was able to snatch it up for $875.

So long story short, my lens upgrade is the Canon 24-70L and I am soooo excited to get it when he gets back from vacation clap

That's great and I love how you approached the problem, by testing and reviewing "how" you shoot. It's always important to get equipment that supports your style instead of buying something you "might" need.

claudermilk

Good to hear. You will love that lens, all the more since it appears to be the right fit for your needs.

BTW, this is the part where I get to say "told you so"...