| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/13/2006 01:23:36 PM · #1 |
I use the Canon Rebel XT and I am in the market for a new lense, but I thought I would stop by and get all you experts opinions first. I need a good lense that I won't have to change very often, for weddings and other portrait work (hockey, graduations, etc...) The three lenses I have looked at are:
Canon EF-S 1755mm F2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L USM
Canon EF 24-105mm F4.0L IS USM
Any comments on which might be best for me would be greatly appreciated.
Dan |
|
|
|
12/13/2006 01:36:15 PM · #2 |
17-55
for weddings, it's the only one of the 3 that will not require an additional wide lens.
the quality of all 3 are second to none. |
|
|
|
12/13/2006 01:36:39 PM · #3 |
The 24-105 is a good range, but probably not fast enough for weddings and low light. Most of the stuff I shoot indoors tends to be wide angle and the IS of the 17-55 would make that a no brainer for me. The only real downside is that the 50-100mm range is better for portraiture, and you'd probably want that reach for hockey, too. I would recommend the 17-55 and either a 50mm f/1.8 for portraits or save bit more for a Tamron 28-75.
Note that the 17-55 lens is currently on sale for $936 at Dell (add it to your cart to see the lower price). |
|
|
|
12/13/2006 01:39:27 PM · #4 |
The only downside to the 17-55 is if you plan on moving onto a full-frame body at some point in the future, you won't be able to use that lens on it.
The IS doesn't seem to add a whole lot for hockey, weddings or portraits - it won't help make the people any less blurry.
There's also the 17-40L F4, though it being a stop slower isn't an advantage for low light work either.
The more normal reality for many event shooters is to have two bodies, one with a medium telephoto and one with a wide angle lens on them. Built in redundancy if a camera fails and good coverage of both extremes. That's a fairly standard PJ setup too.
Message edited by author 2006-12-13 13:41:08.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2006 01:43:44 PM · #5 |
I'd agree that the 17-55 sounds like your first choice. A 24-xx will not be wide enough. For low-light work, you want f/2.8, and IS is another benefit. Though the IS won't make a big differene with live subjects at the wide end (17mm), it will make a significant difference at the longer end of the range (55mm).
Beyond this, you'd want to look at a 70-200 zoom. Very useful for wedding, portraits and sports. The f/2.8 and f/2.8 IS versions of this lens are expensive, but well worth it.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2006 02:45:30 PM · #6 |
Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L USM
No contest. Out of the 3 this would be the best for your applications. I doubt you will ever take it off your camera and the lens is worth the money. |
|
|
|
12/13/2006 03:46:10 PM · #7 |
| The 17-55mm EF-S lens is way too expensive in terms of what you get. Save $500 and go with the Tamron 17-50mm lens. It does not have IS but it is half the cost and comparable-to-better image quality. If you are going to spend the bucks and want Canon, I would go with the 24-70mm L lens. |
|
|
|
12/13/2006 03:52:25 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by TJinGuy:
The 17-55mm EF-S lens is way too expensive in terms of what you get. Save $500 and go with the Tamron 17-50mm lens. It does not have IS but it is half the cost and comparable-to-better image quality. If you are going to spend the bucks and want Canon, I would go with the 24-70mm L lens. |
^seconded
The 17-55 is quite an expensive lens to only fit on a few bodies. It would be a shame if you'd ever change your body. So either spend less on a Tamron 17-50 (great value for money) or take the 24-70
|
|
|
|
12/13/2006 03:59:53 PM · #9 |
Well I've decided to go with the 17-55 because it is superior glass to anything else in its range. I figure if I do decide to go FF later, I will sell the lens with my crop-sensor cameras. In the meantime - I will have the best/fastest glass I can afford at that range. I don't think the Tamron even compares.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2006 04:03:10 PM · #10 |
We should remember that not everyone wants or needs to go 35mm. The APS-C format is here to stay. Both Canon and Nikon have so heavily invested in it, and it has received such acceptance in the user community, that it now has tremendous maket inertia.
With that in mind, the 17-55IS is quite a valid choice. The 24-70 is just not very wide on an APS-C cam. I know, I used mine with the 10D for about a year. But then I knew I was eventually going to move to 35mm. Yes, the Canon 17-55 is more expensive than the Tamron. The IS represents a good chunk of that extra cost. The Tamron is certainly a valid choice as well; for very low light work at the long end of this range, the IS is a significant benefit, so the end user has to weigh the extra cost against losing this benefit. |
|
|
|
12/13/2006 05:13:10 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by k4rp:
^seconded
The 17-55 is quite an expensive lens to only fit on a few bodies. It would be a shame if you'd ever change your body. So either spend less on a Tamron 17-50 (great value for money) or take the 24-70 |
As a note, the Tamron is also limited to use on APS-C sensor cameras. |
|
|
|
12/13/2006 05:15:46 PM · #12 |
Is there a decent super wide angle option for APS-C format cameras yet ?
That's always been my problem with them.
By super wide I mean around 14mm effective ? I even find a 1.3x crop frustrating to get a decent really wide option.
Message edited by author 2006-12-13 17:16:14.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2006 05:42:53 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by TJinGuy:
Originally posted by k4rp:
^seconded
The 17-55 is quite an expensive lens to only fit on a few bodies. It would be a shame if you'd ever change your body. So either spend less on a Tamron 17-50 (great value for money) or take the 24-70 |
As a note, the Tamron is also limited to use on APS-C sensor cameras. |
Yes, I know. But I consider it expensive to fit on those few APS-C/EF-S bodies.
Gordon:
The 10-22 comes close or otherwise a fisheye like the 8mm peleng
|
|
|
|
12/13/2006 07:06:41 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Is there a decent super wide angle option for APS-C format cameras yet ?
That's always been my problem with them.
By super wide I mean around 14mm effective ? I even find a 1.3x crop frustrating to get a decent really wide option. |
I always see the Tokina 12-24mm suggested.
Edit: Now that I read the rest of your reply, the widest I have seen is the 10-20mm but that only gives your 16mm effective on Canon.
Message edited by author 2006-12-13 19:08:20. |
|
|
|
12/13/2006 08:18:40 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Is there a decent super wide angle option for APS-C format cameras yet ?
That's always been my problem with them.
By super wide I mean around 14mm effective ? I even find a 1.3x crop frustrating to get a decent really wide option. |
I find it frustrating too. That's why I want the 5D for an upgrade when the time comes, that or using a film body.
So far, the widest I've seen is 10mm.
There's always the 8mm fisheye, but I'm not sure what the FOV is compared to a 10mm once you get done de-fishing it.
The Sigma 12-24 has an image circle that gives full 24mmx36mm frame coverage. All the other superwides are designed for APS-C sensors
|
|
|
|
12/13/2006 09:37:01 PM · #16 |
the 17-55 IS is a great wedding lens, great for low light.
the 24-70 is a fine lens, but better on a FF camera. the tamron 28-75 2.8 is nearly as good for 1/3 to 1/4 the price.
the 24-105 is the best all around walkaround lens of these three as it has the wides focal length range. the tamron 24-135 SP is as sharp and has a tad more range, but lacks IS and constant ap, but is again, 1/3 the price. For studio work the Tarmron is more than sufficient as you're working in the f8-13 range and IS isn't needed. It's not good for indoor weddings because it's too slow.
On your 350D it doesn't matter, but on the 10/20/30D bodies a contant 2.8 lens allows a extra focusing sensor to be turned on for faster and more accurate focusing - a big plus for weddings or sports.
The best portrait lens, and also great for sports, is the canon 70-200 2.8 IS (or the non-IS for some savings). Better on a FF than a crop body, but canon doesn't offer a 50-150ish 2.8 (sigma does, tokina does or will soon).
My nect lens is the canon 17-55 2.8 IS. I got to use one and WOW! Then the 70-200 2.8 IS.
I want a 5D and know the 17-55 won't work on it, but recently got the 10-22 and don't plan to sell off all my crop bodies just yet. The 5D would be in addition to them. Besides, the good canon lenses hold their value very very well - you could probably get the 17-55 and use it for 6 months or a year and sell it if you get a 5D and get 95% of your money back, if not more.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2006 10:02:47 PM · #17 |
Looks like there is only one thing to do.
Buy all three... :) |
|
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: 12/31/2025 03:36:15 AM EST.
