Primes or the Canon 17-55 f/2.8?

eoren1 · August 5, 2009

I currently have the Canon 50D and own the Canon 50mm f/1.8 mk 1 as well as the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 in addition to the Canon 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens. I have been seriously considering buying the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS and am wondering if others have kept their 30-50mm primes after making this purchase. At least 60% of my photos are of my now 2 and 4 year old kids. The primes were awesome in their first two years of life but I am finding myself shooting much more at f/3.2 - 5.6 now to get both in the picture or at least good focus of both eyes. I tend to shoot mostly outdoors (beach, deck, pool, etc) or indoors where we get very good light. The 17-55 is appealing not only because it is a 2.8 zoom but also because of its AF accuracy and speed - these kids are FAST!
Anyway, I'm thinking of putting up the Sigma 30 for sale to help pay for the 17-55. I had previously considered getting the Canon 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 but now am in favor of the zoom over these primes. It's not that I mind changing lenses but, if I am consistently shooting in the zoom's range (f-stop), aside from slightly better bokeh, can anyone offer reasons for owning/keeping the primes after getting the 17-55?
Thanks!
E

Scott_Quier · August 5, 2009

As you are discovering, kids between 2 and 7 are fast moving critters. Sometimes it's impossible to switch lenses and/or foot zoom fast enough to "get the moment." The 17-55 is nearly ideal for this kind of situation, especially considering that you aren't going to be pushing the aperture limits. With the zoom, you can quickly and easily re-frame the shot as your children move about. I absolutely love mine!

Keeping the primes .... the 50mm f/1.8 Mk1 is nearly a collector's item ... at least I've not seen them around much. If your's is sharp, I think I would hang on to it. In later years, you may find you have the need/desire to make portraits of your children and the 50 may be just the ticket. Then again, the 85mm f/1.8 is a very nice lens as well. Hmmmm - not a lot of help am I?

jmphotocraft · August 5, 2009

17-55 all the way
In this range I've owned, in this order, 17-85IS, 50/1.8, 17-55/2.8IS, 50/1.4. I have since sold both the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 (and of course sold the 17-85). The 17-55 beats them both, easily. I found both 50's to be too soft too often for my taste at anything under f/2.8, so there was no point for me. Also the AF of those lenses is not as consistent/reliable as the 17-55, especially below f/2.8. The 50/1.8 AF was downright maddening when it counted (below f/2.8). The 50/1.4 was sharp at f/2.0, but the AF was less consistent than the 17-55.

If you like soft, dreamy pictures wide open, and you have the budget, by all means try one. I sold my 50/1.4 for about $75 less than what I paid. But getting tack-sharp low light images on a consistent basis is not what these lenses are about. Which is what I wanted.

The 17-55 AF is outstanding, and the IQ is superb - IMO better than the 50/1.4. You won't regret it. The IS sweetens the deal. Oh and for kids the zoom is invaluable. I don't miss the extra 30mm of the 17-85. I have 4 and 7 year olds. This lens is the ticket.

eoren1 · August 5, 2009

Scott_Quier wrote:

Keeping the primes .... the 50mm f/1.8 Mk1 is nearly a collector's item ... at least I've not seen them around much. If your's is sharp, I think I would hang on to it. In later years, you may find you have the need/desire to make portraits of your children and the 50 may be just the ticket. Then again, the 85mm f/1.8 is a very nice lens as well. Hmmmm - not a lot of help am I?

No, not much help at all...

(just kidding).
The 50 is going on the old Canon 350D which the wife now uses for portraits of the kids. I'm thinking the 85 may be a ways off and especially if either kid ends up doing indoor sports.
Thanks for the thoughts,
E

Nikolai · August 5, 2009

As many already said, 17-55 is an awesome workhorse lens for the crop bodies. I still have 50/1.4 but I use it on my FF body (5D2).

Wachel · August 5, 2009

I just bought the EFS 17-55 IS USM 2.8 and LOVE it. It was well worth the money.

I will keep my 50mm 1.8 and I will sell my 18-55 kit lens for whatever I can get.

kini62 · August 5, 2009

Given your subjects and specified DOF desired, I'd get the 24-105 instead. Much better range for chasing the kids. I have a 4yo and 7yo. 55 at the long end is way to short.

Plus one stop faster indoors is generally not enough to get away without flash (if they're moving and when are they not).

Plus the 24-105 is FF compatible for when (and I know you want to

) go to FF.

Mine is very sharp at F4 at all FLs, focuses fast, L build. Just a very nice lens for your needs.

Gene

pyry · August 5, 2009

All of the above

Get the zoom, it's fantastic - and keep the primes for low-light & shallow dof work. I went for the 17-55 first and along side it I've since got the sigma 30/1.4 and Canon's 85/1.8. And believe it or not my 18-55 kit lens is also still in active use sitting on the IR-body.

eoren1 · August 5, 2009

pyry wrote:

All of the above

Get the zoom, it's fantastic - and keep the primes for low-light & shallow dof work. I went for the 17-55 first and along side it I've since got the sigma 30/1.4 and Canon's 85/1.8. And believe it or not my 18-55 kit lens is also still in active use sitting on the IR-body.

So Pyry,
How often do you find yourself using the 30 now? I'm really leaning toward selling it even though it is a very good copy...

Thanks for all the other comments everyone - greatly appreciate your taking the time to reply.

E

Elaine · August 5, 2009

I love my 17-55 2.8 IS on my 40D. It's fast, accurate and sharp wide open. I mostly use it in the 2.8-5.6 range, but rarely go beyond f/4. I also really enjoy my 50 1.4, although I don't usually use it below f/2. I considered getting the 24-105, but as I didn't see myself going full frame for quite some time, the 17-55's range served me better. And the 2.8 has been very useful for me. I think if I had to keep just one lens, this would be it.

pyry · August 5, 2009

eoren1 wrote:

So Pyry,
How often do you find yourself using the 30 now? I'm really leaning toward selling it even though it is a very good copy...

E

It does come out occasionally, and a bit more than the 85 - I go for it when I want to do portraits or flowers or anything where a shallower dof is better.

The zoom is the mainstay though.

jeffreaux2 · August 5, 2009

Get the 17-55 and you wont be sorry!:D

I promise.

I used a 50mm F1.8 for awhile, but found it to be an unreliable focuser...finicky...hit or miss. I JUST traded an 85mm F1.8 for the 50mm F1.4 (thanks Shima) because although I missed having a 50mm prime in my bag I RARELY had a use...or room for the 85mm. Its just too long on a crop sensor for day to day shooting.

eoren1 · August 5, 2009

Hey Jeff,
Glad you chimed in - I had noticed your swap and knew you had the 17-55. So what was the draw of the 50/1.4? A dedicated portrait lens I assume?
E

Wachel · August 5, 2009

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Get the 17-55 and you wont be sorry!:D

I promise.

jeffreaux2 · August 6, 2009

eoren1 wrote:

Hey Jeff,
Glad you chimed in - I had noticed your swap and knew you had the 17-55. So what was the draw of the 50/1.4? A dedicated portrait lens I assume?
E

Using a 50mm prime is fun, and you cant beat the sharpness of a good prime. Coupled with that is the fact that since I sold my 50mm F1.8 and Tamron 28-75 earlier this year I really had no back-up solution in case the 17-55 conked out at an event.

While I doubt that I could shoot an entire wedding and reception with an 85mm, I could probably scrape through with a 50mm.

BTW....since I rarely shoot anything other than people....are all of my lenses dedicated portrait lenses?:D

Scott_Quier · August 6, 2009

jeffreaux2 wrote:

BTW....since I rarely shoot anything other than people....are all of my lenses dedicated portrait lenses?:D

No, 'cause not all your shots are portraits

A portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face and its expression is predominant. (source)

eoren1 · August 6, 2009

Hey Jeff,
Saw your shot with the 50 shortly after posting my question. No doubt that a nice prime still finds its way onto the camera for some great shots. I'm thinking that the 30 is a bit too 'normal' though has served me well and will go on eBay as soon as I get the 17-55.
E

jmphotocraft · August 6, 2009

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Using a 50mm prime is fun, and you cant beat the sharpness of a good prime.

I think that axiom is a thing of the past. f-stop for f-stop, my 17-55 is at least as sharp as the two 50's I've had, if not sharper.

jeffreaux2 · August 6, 2009

jmphotocraft wrote:

I think that axiom is a thing of the past. f-stop for f-stop, my 17-55 is at least as sharp as the two 50's I've had, if not sharper.

Well, I call BS on that.:D

I too own the 17-55 and the 70-200 F2.8L IS.

Both are VERY sharp.....but....not as sharp as a prime.

Sorry, just cannot agree with you on that.

jmphotocraft · August 6, 2009

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Well, I call BS on that.:D

I too own the 17-55 and the 70-200 F2.8L IS.

Both are VERY sharp.....but....not as sharp as a prime.

Sorry, just cannot agree with you on that.

Well that was my experience. Maybe I had a soft copy of the 50/1.4 - I don't think so because it was very sharp at f/2.0 (when the AF hit) and beyond, but I saw no need to keep it along with my 17-55.

This was the sharpest I saw out of the 50/1.4 at f/2.0, and this didn't happen as often as I'd like:

ISO 200, 1/500, f/2.0
original:
http://jmphotocraft.smugmug.com/photos/272289674_o9CGo-O-1.jpg

and this is the typical performance of the 17-55 at f/2.8:

ISO 400, 1/30, f/2.8
original:
http://jmphotocraft.smugmug.com/photos/272291204_TKsbD-O.jpg

jeffreaux2 · August 6, 2009

jmphotocraft wrote:

Well that was my experience. Maybe I had a soft copy of the 50/1.4 - I don't think so because it was very sharp at f/2.0 (when the AF hit) and beyond, but I saw no need to keep it along with my 17-55.

This was the sharpest I saw out of the 50/1.4 at f/2.0, and this didn't happen as often as I'd like:

ISO 200, 1/500, f/2.0
original:
http://jmphotocraft.smugmug.com/photos/272289674_o9CGo-O-1.jpg

and this is the typical performance of the 17-55 at f/2.8:

ISO 400, 1/30, f/2.8
original:
http://jmphotocraft.smugmug.com/photos/272291204_TKsbD-O.jpg

The difference is the stabilization. Simply mounting a prime to a monopod will make them perform better....and it makes a bigger difference than most of us think....at any shutter speed.

Canon 50mm F1.8 that I bought new for around $80.

F3.2

...and a similarly framed shot with the 17-55. While I agree it is a sharp lens, it still doesnt quite resolve details as well as a prime.....even an $80 prime.

jmphotocraft · August 6, 2009

jeffreaux2 wrote:

The difference is the stabilization.

Perhaps. But I have a good copy of the 24-70 too, and it's consistently quite sharp... I haven't decided if it's any more or less sharp than the 17-55, but it performs way more consistently than the 50/1.4 I had.

1D2N, ISO 400, 1/400, f/3.2

100% crop:
http://www.jmphotocraft.com/dory_redwhiteblue_crop.JPG

Simply mounting a prime to a monopod will make them perform better....and it makes a bigger difference than most of us think....at any shutter speed.

Agreed. But for general use that's not practical, especially with kids.

Canon 50mm F1.8 that I bought new for around $80.
...and a similarly framed shot with the 17-55.

Hard to tell from that comparison.

colourbox · August 6, 2009

A lot of the prime vs. zoom comparison depends on the specific circumstances and lens being compared. I have the 50mm 1.8 and used to think it was the go-to for low light, but any sharpness advantage due to being a prime was lost from both lack of stabilization and slow autofocus. If you can't hold still and you can't focus, then inherent lens sharpness is lost to motion blur and focus error. I slowly realized that I was just as likely to get a good shot with the stabilized 17-55 at f2.8. Also, modern computer-controlled lens design has closed the quality gap with primes significantly.

But that equation can be tipped in favor of the prime again by upgrading to a better prime than the $80 50mm f1.8.

Shima · August 7, 2009

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Well, I call BS on that.:D

I too own the 17-55 and the 70-200 F2.8L IS.

Both are VERY sharp.....but....not as sharp as a prime.

Sorry, just cannot agree with you on that.

I used to own a 17-55 (sold it when it moved to Full Frame) and still own a 70-200 2.8/L IS...which is now the only zoom I own.
The rest of my lenses are all primes now, you just can't beat the amazing things the prime can do with DoF and sharpness.

I *love* my 35L... though some of my favorite prime shots have come out of my 135L (which I tend to call my spy lens at wedding receptions since I get shots no one knew I was getting!)... and I just traded Jeff for his 85 1.8 (since although I have major lens lust for an 85L, that's just not happening anytime soon since I just got my 2nd 5D2 and another flash... my account is kind of empty at the moment, lol).

Primes just do something magical. Once I started shooting with them, I was hooked. I blame urbanaries, lol. I first met the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 when I second shot with her last summer.

jmphotocraft · August 7, 2009

Shima wrote:

some of my favorite prime shots have come out of my 135L (which I tend to call my spy lens at wedding receptions since I get shots no one knew I was getting!)

Interesting. Wouldn't your 70-200 be even more of a spy lens? Or is the IQ of the 135 so much better that you forgo the flexibility of the zoom?

ziggy53 · August 7, 2009

jmphotocraft wrote:

Interesting. Wouldn't your 70-200 be even more of a spy lens? Or is the IQ of the 135 so much better that you forgo the flexibility of the zoom?

The EF 70-200mm, f2.8L is a bit soft at f2.8. The EF 135mm, f2L is sharp wide open and has has better bokeh to yield better separation from the background. The 135 in conjunction with any of the Canon 1D/1Ds or 5D models is just awesome. It is a bit long for social situations on a crop 1.6x Canon camera however (IMO).

jeffreaux2 · August 7, 2009

jmphotocraft wrote:

Interesting. Wouldn't your 70-200 be even more of a spy lens? Or is the IQ of the 135 so much better that you forgo the flexibility of the zoom?

The 135mm is a LOT less obvious than a big ol 70-200 as well. Much stealthier.

Pindy · August 7, 2009

jeffreaux2 wrote:

The 135mm is a LOT less obvious than a big ol 70-200 as well. Much stealthier.

Can I get an amen?

The prime problem is that you're better off with two bodies since you'd have to switch too often. Having said that, the 17-55 is pretty fantastic. One of my overall most satisfying lens purchases.

jmphotocraft · August 7, 2009

darn you people. darn you to heck. wishList += 135/2L;

Shima · August 10, 2009

jeffreaux2 wrote:

The 135mm is a LOT less obvious than a big ol 70-200 as well. Much stealthier.

When I do my "spy lens shooting" at receptions, a lot less people realize I'm taking their picture from afar w/ the 135 than w/ the 70-200. I stick out and am rather obvious even from afar when holding the 70-200.

Besides that though 135 at f2 is just mmmmmmmmm

Moogle Pepper · August 10, 2009

jmphotocraft wrote:

darn you people. darn you to heck. wishList += 135/2L;

Hey don't blame us for enticing you to add the 135. Blame the lens!

Primes or the Canon 17-55 f/2.8?

Comments