Options
Why am I so fixed on f/2.8?
firststring74
Registered Users Posts: 114 Major grins
so my hubby bought me my dream lens for christmas 70-200 f2.8L IS. Now I want another lens (to replace the cheap kit lens that came with my original 20D) and I am fixated on getting another lens with f/2.8. Realistically the budget can't afford the f/2.8 and I was looking at getting the 17-40 f4L. I have the 20D and the 40D, I shoot mostly action with the 70-200 and want to have another high quality piece of glass to do more portrait type work. Is it reasonable to get the 17-40 or should I get something in the f/2.8 range? AHHHHH, calm my lust for the 24-70 f/2.8L please!!!!!!! If there is a lens made by a third party that has the same quality of glass I am open to suggestions.
0
Comments
Oh and small.
- Canon 17-55 EF-S f/2.8 IS lens - if you're staying with crop bodies (20D, 40D) then you can't do better than this. ~$960
- Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens - excellent optical quality - close to Canon above (actually less flare and vignetting), but lacks image stabilization. ~$420
- Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 lens - I don't know as much about this lens but reviews are good. ~$450
Rutt's suggestion of getting a good fixed focal length lens for low-light is also worth considering and certainly the cheapest option!Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
canon 50 f/1.8 (if I go with this and not the f/1.4 I can afford another lens)
and a wide angle like the Sigma 10-20mm?
why by the way is the Cannon 17-40 f/4.0L such a good deal?
That'd be a great setup. The only thing you have to make sure you decide is how wide you need your primary zoom lens. Having the 10-20mm is wonderful, but if you're shooting inside a lot and find yourself switching a lot to get the wide angle, that might be annoying. That said, the 28-75 may fit your shooting style perfectly and it is a fabulous lens.
As for why the 17-40 is such a good deal, well, it's an f/4.0 lens so that means much less glass, and it doesn't have IS like some of the other lenses in Canon's lineup. It's a very good lens, but if you want f/2.8, it's not on the list.
The truth is, you will do well with any of the lenses discussed here - you just have to decide what matters and what you can afford and go for it! They'll ALL be big upgrades from your kit lens.
What is your intent? How will you be using the camera and lenses?
Purchasing lenses should not be about filling in the range. Lenses should fill a definite need. You have discovered that the "kit" lens did not meet your needs, but why did it not? Was it just the speed of the lens? Did you like the range of that (kit) lens?
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I think the Tamron 28-75mm is nice as well. I had that lens and it was very useful for portraits. The 50mm f1.8 is nice but feels a bit cheap and the prime isn't as versatile as a zoom. I have the 50mm lens though and think it's a nice lens, especially for the money.
Another option is a Tamron 17-50, but it's more expensive. In terms of ultrawides, sigma 10-20 and tokina 12-24 are both popular.
I'll 2nd KEH. I've now bought 2 "Bargain" price lenses and they've both performed excellently. I got a Minolta AF 50mm f1.4 for about $50 and a Sigma 70-300 3.5-5.6 for under $100.
Well, the 70-200 works great in the big rings when I do horse photography. But it is a bit long in the smaller rings. As part of the horses I also do awards photos and portraits. The 18-55 kit (the one that came with the 20d) just doesn't have the same saturation of color and I would like to replace it with something that I can use for portraits/award photos. Sometimes the 18 is a little long in heavy traffic as well. So I was thinking a wide angle might be better. But I am open to suggestions.
If you must get a zoom as well, go for ultra wide, say 10-22. Something which serves a completely different purpose.
But phase in your lenses one by one so you spend a good amount of time with each and really come to own it before adding to your collection. Many of the very best photographers really use only one lens. Henri Cartier-Bresson, arguably the greatest photographer ever, never used anything bug a 50mm.
I understand.
I think CSwinton has given you the best advice for your needs. The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM is a splendid standard zoom but the Tamron 17-50mm, f/2.8 XR Di II is also a good match and a great value. Both are nice for group images.
If you got the Tamron then you could more easily afford the super-wide zoom in the 10-20-ish range. Almost any of the current super-wide zooms should work for your application. I think you will be surprised at how little you will use the super-wide because it often creates more problems than it solves, but it's still nice to have for those occasions where nothing else will work or where it is specifically indicated.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I have the Tamron 28-75mm, f/2.8 XR Di II and it is a great lense, except for one thing: the autofocus performs poorly in low light conditions. This is even true in conditions for which the lense is otherwise perfectly suited, thus, it is difficult to use this lense for low-light action shots.
Foxxfoot, welcome to the Digital Grin.
I have the Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 RX DC (not the "macro" version however.) It does indeed have great optics and I gather the "macro" version is a bit better. It's good to hear that you have a good one.
It's good to see that they make one with HSM.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Highly recommend the Sigma 18-50 2.8 HSM Macro. Very sharp, fast focus, great colour rendition and Pro build quality.
Yes, Sigma came out with about 3 different versions of the same lens over the course of about a year and a half. Each "new" version presumably a little better than it's predecessor. The HSM "macro" version is the latest and probably greatest rendition. The HSM works beautifully and it close focuses to 0.65 of a foot, or 7.8" I believe. All round nice glass. I was just lucky enough not to have the money to buy one until they came out with this one. I also have the Nikkor 85 mm 1.4 and the 70-200 2.8 VR and the Sigma doesn't have to bow, at least not too low. Sigma seems to be in a sweet spot right now in their lens making history. Lucky us.
These are all good and valid points. I used only my 85 mm for well over a year before I got another lens. Your points about learning to see and making the lens a part of you, really getting to know the lens are absolutely valid. I also never took the lens off so I had the cleanest sensor in town. Virgin really. But the better zooms today are very good and if you're using a camera with an APS sensor, a 50 mm would probably be a bit restrictive for confined spaces don't you think? Maybe not. Depends on your intent and style.
I feel your pain, and the cure is $$$. You have crop camera, so before you lust too much, you should decided if your going to stick with your camera, or move up to a Full Frame camera in the next year or so.
I don't think the 17-40 lens is at it's best on a 1.6 crop camera, you can't get as wide as you think you will. I made that mistake with my 30D when I bought that lens. I have a 1DMark II and still, it's better, but on a 5D, I just lust over how wide the image is.
As far as the F4 vs F2.8... I was not happy with the F4, which is why I bought the 16-35 II lens. Now I have a L-lens that I forget I own half the time, sitting in a bag. The only reason I was not happy with the F4 was because of the photoshoots I had in dark places. I needed more light, and using flash was not a option at those locations.
In regards to the 24-70mm lens, it's a DIFFERENT beast than the 17-40mm lens, and I don't really consider them comparable, even at the same focal lenght. One is a ultra wide to normal lens, and the other is normal to short telephoto lens.
I broke my 24-70mm lens a few months ago, and I really miss it. I have not replaced it yet because Photokina is coming up at the end of September, and IF Canon is going to replace the 24-70mm lens, it would happen during that time. It's kind of a mixed time to buy a lens, if it's fairly new in the market, then I say go for it, but with Photokina coming up, which is the biggest photography trade show and is only every other year, it might be wise to wait. Even if nothing comes out, the X-mas season starts then, so some prices are a bit lower than summer prices.
Crosses fingers & hopes for a Canon EF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM lens comes up during Photokina.
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
I have exactly the set-up mentioned earlier: Tamron 28-75 2.8, 50 (1.8 not 1.4) and the Sigma EX 10-20.
I really love all these lenses. The 50 I use indoors when even 2.8 won't do. The Sigma lens is fantastic, highly recommended, and my tamron is amazingly sharp.
I will eventually upgrade the Tamron to the 24-105 f/4 L, as it is the lens that best fits the range I most often shoot and the IS is ideal for lower light situations where I don't have a tripod handy. I do not want the 17-55, simply because it doesnt have the long end range, and I don't what to pay that kinda $$ without the red ring to show for it
The Sigma I won't ever replace it is perfect as is. For this reason, I do not need coverage at the wide end, as I am perfectly happy with the Sigma.