Which lens to replace my Canon 300D Kit lens?

08/29/2006 12:27:07 PM · #1

I'm going to Italy in a few weeks and before that I
would like to upgrade my Kit lens for something better.
I have been looking at the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM
and EF-S 17-85/4-5.6 IS USMlenses, but it's
rather difficult to decide. Therefore any advice/comments
would be appreciated!

This is what I have been thinking:

EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM

+ @2.8 combined with IS is excellent in low light
+ because of 2.8 aperture it's possible to get shallow
DOF and nice bokeh
- double the price

EF-S 17-85/4-5.6 IS USM

+ connects well with my EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM
+ cheap
+ works in low light thanks to IS
- but gives "motion blur" in low light due to 5.6 aperture
- difficult to get shallow DOF and nice bukeh (so I have
read, this is the main reason why I'm a bit hesitant to
pick this up straight away! How much better is the
EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM in this respect?)

...actually, after writing all this down it occurred to me
that I could put my question in a more simple form; could
someone please suggest me a decent lens that goes up to
around 70mm, goes wide enough for landscapes and get's a
bonus for nice bokeh & low light shooting!

Thanks!

Message edited by author 2006-08-29 12:30:38.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

08/29/2006 12:43:01 PM · #2

Italy is great, if you haven't been before you will love it.

Do you plan on shooting inside churches and/or the Vatican? You need a very fast lense because you can't use a flash and those places are very dark inside. 50mm 1.8 for 75 bucks will take care of your shots inside these sorts of places for the most part.

I don't have experience with either of the two lenses you mention. My experience taking photos in Italy would lead me to think you would find the 17-85 more versatile.

robshookphoto

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM

08/29/2006 12:52:24 PM · #3

sigma and tamron at least also make lenses in the 17-55mm range with aperture 2.8. they are less expensive, and are very nice. You may want to check them out, too.

08/29/2006 12:52:32 PM · #4

Canon 10-22mm, Tamron 28-75mm, and the Canon 70-40mm make a nice trio. I don't know of any single lens that has excellent optics and actually goes from 17mm to 70mm +/-...

R.

Kaveran

Canon EOS-50D

08/29/2006 12:52:55 PM · #5

I was looking into the EF-S 17-85/4-5.6 IS USM myself and came to the conclusion that the IS on the lens is overshadowed/nullified by the slow speed of the lense. Ive alse heard the image quality isnt all that great when taking into account the cost of the lens, but thats all second hand data so take it for what its worth.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

08/29/2006 01:00:40 PM · #6

I didn't see the price on the 17-55/2.8, but you could consider the 17-40/4L plus the 50/1.8. It doesn't reach up to 70, but you get a combo low light (on the 50) and L-quality glass on the 17-40 for about $750 or less for the pair.

The 17-40L is a sweet lens. No IS, but I loved it when I had it.

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

08/29/2006 01:02:35 PM · #7

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I don't know of any single lens that has excellent optics and actually goes from 17mm to 70mm +/-...

R.

I was afraid someone would say that... were you talking about this Tamro lens?

Gnarf

08/29/2006 01:05:42 PM · #8

I think the 17-55 2.8 costs more then the 17-40mm \4 , but if i had the money i would go for the 2.8 version for sure. I think its really sharp, fast and the build is good, but maybe not L-good. Im addicted to fast lenses so i wouldnt have bought the 17-85mm.. ive heard its very soft also.

I've tried out the Tamron 17-50mm, and its a fine lense.

Message edited by author 2006-08-29 13:06:59.

08/29/2006 01:12:38 PM · #9

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That's a nice idea, thanks. The downside is that
it would mean constantly changing optics...

...actually, I just realised that for the price
of the 17-55/2.8 IS USM I could get the 17-85/4-5.6 IS USM,
which would be nice for travel due to the wide
range, and the 50/1.4 USM for playing with DOF/bukeh
in weird compositions.

Message edited by author 2006-08-29 13:16:43.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

08/29/2006 01:18:02 PM · #10

Originally posted by -MK-:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I didn't see the price on the 17-55/2.8, but you could consider the 17-40/4L plus the 50/1.8. It doesn't reach up to 70, but you get a combo low light (on the 50) and L-quality glass on the 17-40 for about $750 or less for the pair.

The 17-40L is a sweet lens. No IS, but I loved it when I had it.

That's a nice idea, thanks. The downside is that
it would mean constantly changing optics...

You wouldn't change as often as you think. You'd realize how good the 17-40 was and keep it on for all situations except the darkest cathedrals. Then you'd switch to the 1.8.

Kaveran

Canon EOS-50D

08/29/2006 01:18:22 PM · #11

Originally posted by -MK-:

...actually, I just realised that for the price
of the 17-55/2.8 IS USM I could get the 17-85/4-5.6 IS USM,
which would be nice for travel due to the wide
range, and the 50/1.8 for playing with DOF/bukeh
in weird compositions.

The quality of the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM from looking at reviews seems to be an overall superior lens in build and picture quality and combined with its speed I would bet is the reason for its price tag.

Here is a link to one of many sites with very good reviews.
Reviews!

08/29/2006 01:22:15 PM · #12

Originally posted by -MK-:

were you talking about this Tamro lens?

Yup. It's a very fine lens at an excellent price point; just not especially wide. Does near-macro work too. I use mine a lot.

R.

08/29/2006 01:26:18 PM · #13

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You wouldn't change as often as you think. You'd realize how good the 17-40 was and keep it on for all situations except the darkest cathedrals. Then you'd switch to the 1.8.

lol. Now that was a good sales pitch! ;P

Message edited by author 2006-08-29 13:26:55.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

08/29/2006 01:30:38 PM · #14

Originally posted by -MK-:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You wouldn't change as often as you think. You'd realize how good the 17-40 was and keep it on for all situations except the darkest cathedrals. Then you'd switch to the 1.8.

lol. Now that was a good sales pitch! ;P

Too bad I don't work on commission... ;)

rami

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

08/29/2006 01:36:22 PM · #15

im going on a trip next month too and i was facing the same problem
i bought the 50 mm 1.8 and it lived up to the expectation quality wise..
its a great lens.. but on a 350D, would i be found in situation where i wished for a wider lens ??... and for a europe trip, frome experience would anyone tell me if the 50 mm would do, or do i need a wider glass ?

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

08/29/2006 01:37:19 PM · #16

Another thing to consider 17mm on your camera won't be wide enough to grab all of, say, the colleseum. Might just grab the Parthenon, but even that is fairly large and the square it is in doesn't let you get back to far unless you want a picture of 500 people standing in front of it. At the same time, most everything else there as far as ruins go could be grabbed by the 50mm because there is a lot of open space around them. All just depends on what you are wanting to shoot.

Prof_Fate

08/29/2006 03:43:53 PM · #17

I suppose you have the money to spend based on teh lenses you are looking at, but consider:

Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX or the Tamron 17-50 2.8 SP. As sharp as the canon 17-40 F4 from F4 on up, but you get more range and they are one stop faster when needed, and less costly.

The canon 10-22 3.5-4.5 is nice and if you can afford it, get it. A less costly alternative is the tokina 12-24 F4.

IS is not much value below 100mm focal length. Sure, three 'stops', as in 3 steps lower on shutter speed, but in reality you can handhold 1/focal length anyway, so an IS lens at 17mm can be handheld a 1/15 to 1/30 by the average person. 3 stops slower shutter is 1/2 to 1/4 second...and no, i don't think any IS is gonna work for a 1/2 second handheld shot. So you're adding cost, complexity and battery drain for no real-world benefit.

if true handheld low light is important, don't get a $1000 lens but get a new body - the 30D is a lot better noise wise than the 300D.

08/29/2006 03:51:00 PM · #18

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Jejeje� Did you mean to say the "pantheon"? The Parthenon is in Athens...

(parthenon)

(Pantheon)

Robt.

08/29/2006 03:52:41 PM · #19

Incidentally, for what it's worth I wouldn't DREAM of trying to shoot in Italy without a good, extreme wide angle lens. Things are really tight in those old towns and cities...

Robt.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

08/29/2006 03:55:40 PM · #20

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Jejeje� Did you mean to say the "pantheon"? The Parthenon is in Athens...

Robt.

No, I meant the Parthenon which is in Rome.

edit: note aforementioned 500 people. I can assur eyou what you see here is a light crowd.

edit edit: oh, the spelling. god knows, shutterstock lists it how i spelled it. guess i mispelled it.

Message edited by author 2006-08-29 15:57:42.

LoveSpuds

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

08/29/2006 03:59:02 PM · #21

I replaced mine with the Canon 17-40mm F4 L and have never regretted it, a really great piece of kit.

Coincidently, I tried my mates Sigma 10-20mm today and have to say, I was really blown away with it, it really did look the business, I am saving for one now :)

I am with Dr Achoo on this one, once that 17-40 is on you won't take it off unless you have too!