Options
Indecisive decision on next glass purchase
PVNPhotography
Registered Users Posts: 25 Big grins
Hello everybody! I had just bought my Canon XSi during the beginning of last week and I have been out shooting a lot of pictures and well, I plan on making a purchase for a glass under $500 around February/March. I have been doing a lot of research on a great review site www.the-Digital-picture.com because they have reviewed almost all the glass that Canon carries.
Throughout my shooting experience from last week, I found that I kind of need a telephoto, so I can zoom up close on things but again, I want something that's wide. I know that the 50mm will be one of the glass that has to be in my bag and so, that may/may not be my first priority glass to buy. However it's the cheapest I can get which may alter my decision by buying that one first.
The glasses I've been having my eyes on are the:
28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM // ~$400
17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM // ~$450
I've heard that the barrel distortion on the 28-135 is really really noticeable in pictures. I haven't seen it for myself, but I really do want to see how the IQ is for the 28-135. Though, in my opinion, the 17-85 seems like a cheaper version of the 24-70 (but doesn't have great IQ, sharp focus as the 24-70 does).
What do you guys think I should do?
Throughout my shooting experience from last week, I found that I kind of need a telephoto, so I can zoom up close on things but again, I want something that's wide. I know that the 50mm will be one of the glass that has to be in my bag and so, that may/may not be my first priority glass to buy. However it's the cheapest I can get which may alter my decision by buying that one first.
The glasses I've been having my eyes on are the:
28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM // ~$400
17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM // ~$450
I've heard that the barrel distortion on the 28-135 is really really noticeable in pictures. I haven't seen it for myself, but I really do want to see how the IQ is for the 28-135. Though, in my opinion, the 17-85 seems like a cheaper version of the 24-70 (but doesn't have great IQ, sharp focus as the 24-70 does).
What do you guys think I should do?
Canon Rebel XSi/450D
0
Comments
If you have the 18-55mm kit lens that is typically purchased with the Rebel XSi, I'm not sure what you'd want the 17-85mm for. It's just a little bit wider (1mm), and a bit longer (by 30mm), but not really much better. In your position, with limited funds available, I'd stick with the 18-55mm lens for a standard-range zoom and buy something completely different.
If you want an inexpensive, good-quality wide-angle zoom, I suggest the Canon-mount version of the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 (model AT-X 124 AF PRO DX II). This is a good lens, and it works very well on the Rebels. Last I heard, it was selling new for about $400.
I'm not sure why you assume that you want a 50mm prime in your bag. On APS-C, it's more of a short-range portrait lens than the standard field of view that it is on full-frame cameras. Of course, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II is incredibly inexpensive, so it's hard to argue against it, but for a prime that is roughtly equivalent to standard view, you might prefer Canon's EF 35mm f/2, which sells new for about $300.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
I think you should get the Canon 55-250IS. The 55-250 is a different, longer focal range but it's sharper and has better image resolution according to
www.photozone.de
and
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=456&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0&LensComp=116&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=1
best of all - it's less than $200 ! (refurbished - www.Adorama.com)
Thats a good question, if it were me id lean twords the 17-85 unless you fell you need the longer telephoto sooner then id get the something bigger like the 50-200 mentioned above or 70-300.
I own the 17-85mm you mentioned above and i really like the lens a lot. The only thing i wish was better was i wish it were a little faster for low light shots. Sometimes i find f4 a little slow. Otherwise its a fantastic lens and the image quality just blows the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my xsi away. I also have a 70-300 USM in my bag so i have a little overlap and i just picked up a 50mm 1.4 which im falling in love with.
Tamron makes a very nice 28-75mm f2.8 Di that is very sharp and not that expensive. I still have mine after a decade and still find it useful. It is smaller and lighter than Canon's 24-70 also. Cheaper too!
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
actually, if you look at lens review sites like www.photozone.de
the 18-55IS kit lens "blows away" the 17-85 in image quality, resolution and sharpness!
or you could save up another $300-500 and get the canon 17-55 IS 2.8.
Well i read a mixed bag depending on where you go...
"The Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens is a significantly better lens than the significantly less expensive Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens, and better than the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens" from the digital picture.com
So you can read it both ways...... whatever
I'm sorry to break it to you Brett, real world tells me a lot different then what your reading. I own and have shot both lenses. If the 18-55 is such a much better lens then how come everything i take with my 17-85 comes out a great deal sharper and with much better color depth then the ones that come off my 18-55?
Or a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I found the range and performance teriffic on a 1.6x crop.
― Edward Weston
you can see the difference yourself at www.slrgear.com, www.digital-picture.com, and independent lab tests like www.photozone.de show the actual image resolution data and MTF resolution numbers -
conclusion quote: "the Canon 18-55IS quite a bit better than the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS"
- sorry to break it to you but independent lab tests seem to hold up better than personal backyard tests!
both the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and Tamron 17-50 2.8 show excellent results for that focal length range
www.photozone.de
Well you didnt answer my question, all you did was throw out another website reference out there. Again if is the 18-55MM IS is a better lens then the 17-85mm then why do i get sharper images and better color depth with the 17-85mm? Why is the 17-85 generally well reviewed by most(all but one that i could find) websites and user reviews? I have shot literally thousands of shots thru each lens on my XSI and my eyes are telling me the 17-85 is the better lens based on the results i have achieved with each one.
To me, I feel that any other lenses will be better then 18-55. But that's all I have for now so it's the only thing I can use.
Any ways, I think these lenses are going to wait. I was at my sister's birthday party yesterday and while we were eating in a restaurant, I tried to capture some shots with a higher aperture and all the photos came out dark. Moved it down to 18mm where I can use the aperture of 3.5 and photos came out great. Now I'm deciding to first get the 50mm f/1.8 and a battery grip.
50/1.8 might be a bit too long for indoor, unless you have a big room. Try 28mm or 35mm as well, before you make the decision.
Eric
I know that the 50mm will be at 80mm with the crop factor... but how close will it be?
I'm not understanding your question?
The issue is that of "Field of View" (FOV). On a crop 1.6x camera a 50mm lens has a FOV similar to that of an 80mm lens on a full frame 35mm SLR. While it might be fine for a tight head shot indoors, or even head-and-shoulders in many cases, it's probably not too useful otherwise. It all depends upon how much room you have between you and the subject.
Since you have an 18-55mm, use it to determine for yourself what focal length you should need. Are you saying that the 55mm setting is still too short?
Another reason to use a somewhat wider lens indoors is that electronic flash is less effective at longer distances. (Although many modern flashes have a "zoom" feature that mitigates this somewhat.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I personally tryied both EF 28/1.8 and 35/f2. I found both are good, but not perfect. The 28/1.8 has USM. It is fast and quite. It is very sharp in the center but the corner is no so good even for a crop body. This is not a big deal if your use it to take indoor low light portrait, since you will not put your object to the extreme corner as the middle portion of the frame is very good . But it will be bad if you use it to take landscape, architecture etc outdoors and eventhough I do not have a 5D/1D, I could imaging the corner sharpness would be worse on fullframe bodies. The biggest turn off for me is that even stop down to f4, on a crop body, the corners are still visibly unsharp. I tried 35mmf2 as well. The lens produce good IQ and the corner sharpness is much much better. But it has no USM, so it is kinda loud. Sounds like a electric drill. I also found the focus accuracy is a bit worse than the 28/1.8. Also it tends to overexpose 1/3 to 2/3 stop compare to other lens under the same lighting which is not too much a big deal. In the end I did not buy either lens, since I have a 24-70L. I think if the 35f2 is built like 28/1.8 with the same price, I will buy the 35f2. Otherwise I will just save money for a 35L. The 24-70L at f2.8 is perfectly usable. As a matter of fact it is very good. I will buy 35f2 if I do not have a fast zoom. It is cheaper and has good IQ. I like it's small size as well. I wish Canon can upgrade it to a USM version.
Eric
Thanks for your advice ziggy. Well, I don't know how much room I'll be having when I shoot those pictures so it's hard to determine right now until I actually go scout that area first.
After reading what you posted and then what RedSox posted, and looking at my camera and seeing what focal length I felt comfortable with, it seems like 35mm is where it's not too far and it's not too close from the subject.