| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/03/2008 12:42:54 PM · #1 |
Okay, I need some feedback.
I do a little semi-pro work, even a few weddings for friends and family. And I am looking at picking up a 40D in the near future. I am debating whether to get the kit with the following lens:
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Now usually I like to have f/2.8 lens as you can see by the list of my current equip:
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
Tokina 12-24 f/4
Canon 50mm f/1.8
The following could be an option, except I found the 55mm a bit too short for my liking as I like to be able to take a whole body shot then zoom in and capture a facial expression (or vice-versa).
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Which is why I sold off my kit lens and got the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Because a lot of my shooting is done in low-light, IS is a plus. I am curious as to how something like the following compare:
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
versus
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
Let's face it, what I really want is a 17-85 f/2.8 IS (and if it was as wide as the 200mm f/1.8 that'd be fine). But I don't see such being made. I want a sharp, clear lens that focuses well. And on the 20/30/40D family, the normal lens ranges just are not wide enough. Hence I am considering getting the kit with the above lens.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2008 03:16:39 PM · #2 |
The only thing that held me back from getting this lens is the following from Photozone:
"at 17mm it shows the most pronounced barrel distortions of all (supposedly) corrected lenses tested to date and that's by quite a margin"
When you get to the wider end of things, you can't really have it all without the tradeoffs. Although I can't say that the 17-85 isn't a good lens because I don't own nor have I ever used one (hopefully someone who has one can chime in), but your best bet might be to get a wider lens and then use a longer lens on your second body.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2008 03:25:55 PM · #3 |
I've got that lens and I have to say that it's grown on me over time. It is capable of taking some very good shots.
Look here for some examples link
edit for link
Message edited by author 2008-06-03 15:26:22. |
|
|
|
06/03/2008 03:34:04 PM · #4 |
I bought the lens as a replacement for my kit lens... yes the IS is decent, but it isnt fast enough really for moving subjects. I recently shot an indoors do and decided i was better off running back and forth with my 50mm 1.8 than playing around with high iso to capture the action as you are always going to get motion blur at those apertures unless you boost iso to crazy proportions. I hardly use the lens now... my "lite" bag has 10-20 the 50mm prime and then the 70-200mm.. so i have the gap which should be filled by the lens, but i just prefer the 50mm...
just my 2 pence. - and i'm not a wedding photographer - the event was a family b-day in a hotel and pretty much my only one so far.
Message edited by author 2008-06-03 15:35:48. |
|
|
|
06/03/2008 04:22:41 PM · #5 |
If it's not a necessity to sell the 20D to fund the 40D, why not go for a two-camera setup in such a position. The 28-75 on one cam and the 70-200 on the other would make a great combination, I feel.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2008 05:05:05 PM · #6 |
| given your other lens, I think you'll be disappointed with it. |
|
|
|
06/03/2008 05:12:13 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Mr_Pants:
If it's not a necessity to sell the 20D to fund the 40D, why not go for a two-camera setup in such a position. The 28-75 on one cam and the 70-200 on the other would make a great combination, I feel. |
That is my intention. But there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between 17mm & 28mm on a 1.6 crop camera. And having an extra 10mm on each end of the range is pretty nice to have.
If the 17-85mm IS was f/2.8 I'd go for it in a flash. I am really wondering if the IS can compensates for the 4-5.6 f/stop.
Or if I am better off sticking with my 28-70mm Tamron.
So am I better off with:
20D + 70-200mm f/2.8 IS
40D + 28-70mm f/2.8 Tamron
OR
20D + 70-200mm f/2.8 IS
40D + 18-85mm f/4-5.6 IS
Message edited by author 2008-06-03 17:13:23. |
|
|
|
06/03/2008 05:36:18 PM · #8 |
I own the 17-85mm IS
I was just at my brother's wedding this past weekend that had a very poorly lit reception.....I HAD to use my 85mm 1.8 at ISO 1600 and Av of 2.8 to get any usable shots. I tried to use the 17-85 but it was just too slow....espcially at Av of 5.6 at 85mm. I just had to back up quite a bit to get full body shots with the prime.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2008 06:22:58 PM · #9 |
I also own a 17-85mm IS and find it very sharp when light is good but low light does mean higher iso to get the job done. My nephew has a Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro and it seems a better lens in lower light very sharp and around
the same price, while not an IS it still seems better in lower light, and is an extremely good macro lens.
Just an observation. |
|
|
|
06/03/2008 06:46:51 PM · #10 |
| When I used mine, it never seemed as sharp as I thought it should, and everything seemed to be washed out, very poor saturation and contrast. But it could just been a bad lens. All the reviews I read that said it was pretty good. After it got stolen though, I went straight for the 24-70 2.8L |
|
|
|
06/03/2008 08:40:08 PM · #11 |
Thanks all...
This saves me $500 and possibly failed photos!
Much obliged.
:-)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 12:21:11 AM EDT.
