Should I Do It? - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35 f/4 ED VR

05/07/2007 10:08:51 AM · #1

This is what I'm considering:

Buying a Canon 17-55 2.8 IS

Selling my Canon 28-135 IS 3.5 and my 18-55 3.5 "Dog Toy"

Based on the prices I'm thinking that the total price difference will be about $400. Since I already have a 70-300 IS I will have pretty much the range that my 28-135 covered, and with a better aperature lens. Not to mention that this will save me some room and weight in my camera bag.

Thoughts?

darnok

Nikon D850

05/07/2007 10:12:44 AM · #2

If you can afford it, go for it.

PHOTOKID

05/07/2007 10:15:10 AM · #3

I would Definately do it, IMO.... Its a no brainer.... only thing you will need to look for would be a 10-20mm eventually.

Good luck in Choosing!
Rich

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

05/07/2007 10:21:02 AM · #4

I'm against making a lens change just because you can (speaking from experience). Make sure really need the upgrade.

Do you use the 18 to 28 range?
Do you really need f2.8?
How often do you go over 55 on the 28-135?

$1000 is a lot of money to spend if you aren't sure. The 28-135 is capable of superb images, but it does have it's limits. If you find yourself always pushing those limits (low light, or needing shallow dof), then it makes the decision an easy one.

Take your time on this decision, it's a lot of money.

pineapple

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

05/07/2007 10:23:58 AM · #5

Possibly, the better replacement is the 24-70mm 2.8. The 17-55 is an EFS mount, I just noticed.

Message edited by author 2007-05-07 10:26:57.

05/07/2007 10:30:47 AM · #6

I've been thinking about this for a while and had pretty much made up my mind. The kicker was that adorama had a refurb for 899, which I just bought.

Last weekend I went on a hike with my scout troop, and only carried the 70-300 and the 18-55. I was switching back and forth depending on the situation. Ever since I got my 70-300 I pretty much have not been using my 28-135.

The other reason for getting the 2.8 is the fact that I do want to take indoor pictures without a flash, and I plan on having this lens/camera combo for quite some time.

Thanks everyone for your comments, that was exactly what I was looking for, just a reality check that I wasn't missing something obvious.

Anybody want a barely used 28-135 or 18-55? I've only had the 28-135 since christmas.

05/07/2007 10:31:59 AM · #7

I thought about the 24-70, but i'm more interested in the wide angle than the 2.8, its the reason I bought the 18-55 in the first place. My 28-135 just wasn't wide enough to do what I wanted indoors. The nice thing with the 17-55 is that its both at the same time and even has the IS which I think is invaluble. I'm not bothered by the EF-S, I don't plan on upgrading my 30D anytime soon...especially since everything that I'm doing is just for pleasure.

I've offered to help a friend that does weddings but other than that don't ever plan on making any money from it, just love taking pictures. I really need to submit to more challenges, just been really busy lately.

Message edited by author 2007-05-07 10:39:55.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/07/2007 10:53:07 AM · #8

FYI for anyone that is interested, it appears that Adorama has more than one of these things:

//www.adorama.com/CA1755R.html

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens for for 30D, 20D, Digital Rebel & Digital Rebel XT Only - Refurbished by Canon U.S.A.

$899.95

ragamuffingirl

Sony Alpha NEX-5N

05/07/2007 01:12:02 PM · #9

$900 bucks for a lens that's not even L-quality????

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/07/2007 02:35:15 PM · #10

To quote The digital picture review:
//www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

-Begin Quotes-
The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens, with a fast, fixed f/2.8 aperture, very high image quality, 3-stop Image Stabilization and a very popular focal length range, is one of the best general/multi-purpose lenses available.

Combining an f/2.8 aperture with the 3 stop image stabilization, the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is arguably the most handholdable lens Canon currently makes.

Prior to receiving my Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens, I stated that I expected its image quality to match or nearly match that of Canon's L Series Lenses as it shares the L-Series UD lens elements. As it turns out, my 17-55 matches or exceeds the optical performance of my L-Series zooms in this similar focal length range.

I'm not sure why Canon did not go all the way and make the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens an L-Series lens. An upgraded (metal) lens barrel seems to be the missing component - and the red ring.

-End Quotes-

--In short, besides the non-metal body this lens has almost all the same quality as an "L". The other lens that is in this general area is the EF 17-40mm f/4L which while an "L" lens, does not have quite the range and lacks the aperture and IS, both of which are the main reasons why I want this lens.

Message edited by author 2007-05-07 14:38:13.

Simms

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/07/2007 03:04:50 PM · #11

This lens has fantastic reviews across the board.. If my main camera wasn't a Full-frame then it would defintely be on my `to buy` list.

05/10/2007 04:20:23 PM · #12

I just got the lens in the mail and it is absolutely fantastic. The DOF capabilities are awesome, and I'm taking great photos in dark areas that I never could have dreamed of before. I am very pleased, highly recommend this lens to anyone that can afford it.

Now I gotta get rid of my other two, including the filters I have for em. Ebay here I come....

splidge

Canon EOS-40D