| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/08/2006 05:31:48 PM · #1 |
I am looking for advice on lenses. I have a canon 20D and I recently bought the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM lense which I am happy with.
I also bought the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM but I was wondering if I should have bought one of the following; (since I can still return this one)
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
I am fairly new to photography and welcome any feedback
Thanks, |
|
|
|
07/08/2006 05:44:10 PM · #2 |
You need to ask yourself some questions..
1) Do I need the reach beyond 55mm or 70mm?
2) Will I need the f/2.8 aperture?
3) Will I need IS?
You can discount half your options just by answering one of those questions.
If you want optimum quality the 24-70/2.8L is almost certainly that, but you trade off the wide end and it costs that bit more. |
|
|
|
07/08/2006 06:00:32 PM · #3 |
| the 17-55 is a nice lens but you also need to ask yourself if you plan on upgrading to the 5d or one of the marks any time soon because it doesn't work on them. |
|
|
|
07/08/2006 06:02:01 PM · #4 |
An honest question is whether you need $3500 in photography equipment when you are "fairly new to photography".
I would spend the time learning photography on one lens and figuring out what you want to get out of the camera and what kind of pictures you like to shoot rather than collecting lenses and having them gather dust or not having the skill to use any of them.
That being said, the combination of the 17-40L and the 70-200L is probably enough for even an advanced photog. You aren't particularly going to miss 40-70 and if you do you can fill it out with the 50mm/1.8 for $75.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2006 06:10:12 PM · #5 |
All really depends on whether you want to cover wide to 200mm with two lenses or three. With a 1.6-crop cam, 17mm is pretty wide, but not incredibly wide. If you need wider coverage, you might consider the replacing the 17-55 with the 24-70, and fill the wide end with the Canon 10-22. That will pretty much give you top quality in each zoom range; you could only do moderately better quality-wise with primes. If you do decide to go full frame, then the 10-22 must go of course, being EF-S (only fits cropped cams) but then 24mm is pretty wide on full frame (equivalent to 16mm on the 20D).
Message edited by author 2006-07-08 18:10:31. |
|
|
|
07/08/2006 06:28:00 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
If you do decide to go full frame, then the 10-22 must go of course, being EF-S (only fits cropped cams) but then 24mm is pretty wide on full frame (equivalent to 16mm on the 20D). |
Aquestion about the 5d and the 24mm.
this was mentioned by someone on DPreview.com
"But too bad when combined with 24-105 IS lens., the image will create Vignett / light fall of."
I was looking at the canon 24-70 and wondered if this is actually a problem.
(sorry for the samll thread hijack) |
|
|
|
07/08/2006 06:40:36 PM · #7 |
this was my thought as well ...
don't get me wrong, i envy your stuff ... it's just a lot of money to part with if you aren't certain you'll be needing that type of gear.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
An honest question is whether you need $3500 in photography equipment when you are "fairly new to photography".
|
|
|
|
|
07/08/2006 06:58:18 PM · #8 |
Thanks to all for your comments. I have admired many of your guys amazing work. Your comments were very helpful. I went in to the camera store to buy the 70-200 and the 17-40 and was semi pressured into the 17-55.
I was only planning on starting with two lenses but now I am second guessing myself due in part to my lack of experience. I have ten days to return the 17-55 if I made a blunder.
I do appreciate your time and comments on answering my question.
Mike |
|
|
|
07/09/2006 10:15:07 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
Originally posted by kirbic:
If you do decide to go full frame, then the 10-22 must go of course, being EF-S (only fits cropped cams) but then 24mm is pretty wide on full frame (equivalent to 16mm on the 20D). |
Aquestion about the 5d and the 24mm.
this was mentioned by someone on DPreview.com
"But too bad when combined with 24-105 IS lens., the image will create Vignett / light fall of."
I was looking at the canon 24-70 and wondered if this is actually a problem.
(sorry for the samll thread hijack) |
Can anyone answer this question? |
|
|
|
07/09/2006 10:29:33 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
...A question about the 5d and the 24mm.
this was mentioned by someone on DPreview.com
"But too bad when combined with 24-105 IS lens., the image will create Vignett / light fall of."
I was looking at the canon 24-70 and wondered if this is actually a problem.
(sorry for the samll thread hijack) |
There may be some light fall-off at the wide end, but no different than was true with film. It's a fact of life with wide lenses (both the 24-70 and 24-105 will show some of it. That's the bad news. The good news is:
- It's not often that noticable; stopping down a bit reduces it significantly
- It often *adds* something to a shot, perhaps more often than it detracts
- Removing it is simple, can be done in RAW conversion
My advice is, don't worry about light fall-off as much as you'd worry about minor barrel distortion. The latter is harder to accurately correct for, but hardly ever mentioned as a "problem." |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/05/2025 11:23:51 PM EDT.
