Handruin

So I'm planning a long trip this summer to travel the US and I'd like to buy a new lens for my photo habit. As it stands now, I have the following gear:

Canon 20D
17-85mm EF-S with IS
50mm F/1.4
70-200mm F/2.8 L with IS
100mm F/2.8 Macro

I've been giving serious thought to upgrading my 17-85 lens to the 24-70 F/2.8 L. I would then look into sell my 17-85mm some how (or if anyone here might be interested in it). The 17-85mm is a decent lens and I've had some great shots with it but I'd like to move up to a higher quality glass to get the best I can out of pictures on my trip (and for years to come including future camera bodies).

I've read numerous good reviews on the 24-70 2.8L , but my concern is that I'd be trading off two things:
One trade off is the loss of a bit of wide angle (24mm vs 17mm). The second is the lose of the IS feature on my 17-85. Though I'd argue the 17-85 might need it more because of the slower aperture where as the added stop on the 24-70 might make up for it a bit (and also give me better bokeh). In order to solve the wide angle difference my longer-term goal was to acquire a 10-22mm EF-S down the road when the budget allows. Buying both lenses isn't going to happen right now, so I have to pick.

What do you guys think? Basically I'm looking to replace my walk around lens. As it is now, I spend more time with my 50mm because it takes better pictures than my 17-85, but it isn't wide enough for some things. The only other consideration was the 24-105 F/4.0 L with IS. I'm leaning away from that because it covers a bit of the rang of my 70-200 and I'd prefer to have the F/2.8.

I guess I should have planned things out a little bit when I started, but I have to live and learn. I know it's up to me, but if you had to decide, what would you opt for?

sixsixfour

I would keep the 17-85 IS lens. that covers a wide range of shooting scenarios and you have IS to compensate and further expand your envelope.

if i had the money I would get the 28-200mm EF IS lens. i like all-around lenses at the expense sometimes of a faster and sharper lens. i currently have a 18-55mm (standard XT lens), 50mm F1.8 EFII, 75-300mm EF and broke my only 28-90 EF USM lens.

Handruin

The 17-85 has a variable aperture, so it'll only do F/4-5.6. There are some visual benefits to the fixed F/2.8 in the 24-70...just food for thought.

As for the 28-200mm F/3.5-5.6 you mentioned...that would be a huge downgrade to my 70-200 F/2.8L, so there is no chance of me buying that lens. I think I'm opposite of you in that I'd rather have the sharpest lens I can at the expensive of occasionally changing lenses. I know it might sound snobbish of me, I'm just trying to consider the longer term of buying decent glass as to buying cheaper more often (and having lesser quality pictures). I've saved up money to do this, so I'm trying to plan and do it right.

sixsixfour

oh i agree - quality over quantity rules, especially when you talk about cameras. the 28-200mm was just a personal preference for me, i didnt want to imply that you get that.

i just plan to get another body (maybe the XTi, or better) and have my XT be permanently fixed with the 28-200, and the higher end body use the sharper lens(es) i can buy, or switch between faster ones.

good luck

guia x

I'm pretty much in the same boat as you. In fact we almost have the same lens combinations but I have the 50 f1.8, 70-300, 100mm macro, and the 18-55 kit lens. I decided I'm going to get the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS when I get the money. Im looking to replace my kit lens. Read about our discussion HERE.

wndrlst

Personally, I'd spring for the EF-S 10-22 now, and upgrade the walkaround later. That said, I also have the 17-85 IS, and can understand your desire to upgrade to sharper glass. It's def. not a bad lens, but it could certainly be improved upon. Probably 90% of everything I've shot since going digital has been with that lens, but eventually I'll trade it, too.

I'm going on a trip to the BVI in a couple of weeks, and am thinking of renting a 10-22. That may also be an option? You could upgrade the walkaround & rent the 10-22.

Billiam

Given the info presented so far, I'm of the same opinion as wndrlst; get the 10-22 now as it's the only focal range you're considering that you currently aren't covered in. Just remember that the 10-22 becomes useless if you ever upgrade to a full frame body.

With that said, you may be currently using the living hell out of your 17-85. If that is indeed the case, then the upgrade to the 24-70/2.8 may make more sense.

Handruin

I think that's the thing...I'd only want the 10-22 for the occasional really wide shots but not a common walk-around. And as you pointed out (and something I considered) the 10-22mm isn't going to work on all Canon bodies.

I know I may have already decided inside on the 24-70mm, but was wondering if there were any other options I might have missed, and the newer 17-55mm wasn't something I had considered until this thread. That's a fairly expensive lens for not being of an L category. Granted it seems to rate well, but I'd like to cover past 55mm...so it's once again lacking just a little bit that I want. Even the 24-70 is lacking the wide angle, so I feel like I'm compromising on everything that's available. If we were talking $100 here, I'd of bought the damn thing...but for what these things cost...I really want to think about them and let it simmer for a bit before committing.

Dan Martin

I think the 17-55 f/2.8 would suit your needs perfectly. It outperforms the 24-70 in every test I've ever seen and it's a much better focal length for your 20D. I've been down the 24-70 route before with my 30D and I found it to be a little awkward. It wasn't wide enough to be a wide angle and it wasn't long enough to be a telephoto. The 17-55 is a much better workhorse lens for a cropped body.

I primarily shoot with the 10-22 and my 70-200. I use primes to cover anything between the two and that system works very well. I might grab a 17-55 for our honeymoon trip later this year, just for the sake of having a nice walk-around lens for those days I want to travel light.

I wouldn't worry about incompatibility of lenses between cropped and full frame bodies. If you decide to dump the 20D for a 5D or a 1-series, just sell the EF-S lenses and buy the latest revision of whatever the full-frame equivalent is at the time. It doesn't make sense to short-change your current kit just because you speculate that you may change bodies at some point. Almost every EF-S lens in the lineup outperforms the equivalent in the EF line, L's included. The short distance between the rear element and the sensor on an EF-S lens & body makes a noticeable difference.

The lenses hold their value quite well, so it's not a problem to trade up at a later date. If you buy used, you'll lose next to nothing when you go to sell it again. Once a lens is used, it's used. It really doesn't matter how used it is, it will fetch roughly the same money in the market.

cl_jay

+1 for the 17-55. You would be keeping the IS while getting a lower aperture than your 17-85. I've read that the only reason the 17-55 wasn't given the "L" status, was because they don't want "L"'s for EF-S; however, the 17-55 is optically as good or better than the 24-70L, the only thing it lacks in is weather proofing (whitch doesn't matter because your camera isn't weatherproof) and in weight lol.

Handruin

Thanks for the good feedback. I hadn't considered the 17-55mm at all until now. I've read a few reviews along with the comments I've seen here and it looks like a very good lens (though, who has actually bought one yet?). For me the F/2.8 is key, I really like how the bokeh looks with the faster lenses. Though I've read in a few places that the 24-70 has a nicer bokeh than the 17-55, but I bet it's marginal (I have no proof of their claims). cl_jay, I know my 20D doesn't have weather proofing, but it's nice when the lens is sealed up well so dust won't get in it. That's one of the things I like about my 70-200.

Dan, I know what you're saying about the EF vs EF-S, but it still makes me wonder if I should not go that route (EF-S). I would like to pick up a better camera body (1D-something) in the next 3 years or so, but I guess I should just buy for now, because I don't even know if a new L lens will come out then that i might want.

I have some more reading to do before I decide. I still have time, but i would like to get it a month before I go so that I have some time to play and learn with it.

cl_jay

Ah, good thing you mentioned dust. I have also heard that dust is in issue for the 17-55. Not sure how true that is though. On the other hand, the one you get may not have that issue. I just read a comment that with ~5000 shots, no dust has shown up.

Another thing I've heard a lot is that the 24-70's colors seem to "pop" more than the 17-55. The 17-55's colors are more natural. I prefer colors to "pop", but that really is more of a preferencial thing. I'm going to give you some viewing and reading material. Good Luck!

Link for gallery of photos taken with 17-55
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=234558

Link for gallery of photos taken with 24-70
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=173736

Link of discussion of dust issues with 17-55
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=220527
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=212582

Link of a consumer comparison of 24-70 vs 17-55
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...24-70+vs+17-55

If you want to read more, search on that site for the lenses. New "24-70 vs 17-55" threads are always coming up. Consensus seems to be...
Crop = 17-55
FF = 24-70

Handruin

Awesome! Thanks for the links, I'll start reading through them! The dust has always been on my mind because I'm sure my 17-85 will need to be cleaned in a few more years. I think it's inevitable. Though I'd rather not have to do it for a while.

My preference would be the pop'ed colors over natural. If that's the case I might still lean more for the 24-70 (+ a 10-22 down the road). With all this reading it makes me even want to spring for a 1d mark III...but that ain't happening for a while (I can dream).

Another thing I'd been worried about with the EF-S is the loss in value. Even now I'm considering selling my 17-85 and the price has dropped $100 since I bought mine just over a year ago. I don't expect it to drop a ton more, but I've read a couple articles that speculate the depreciation of EF-S will be more than EF lenses. Now, granted I'm not in this as an investment opportunity, but in the case where I want to sell and buy others, it becomes a costlier venture.

danny25

That should be right, lenses with longer focal lengths produce shallower depth of field. I agree though, it will most likely be marginal.

waTSX

The 17-55 is excellent and about an ideal walk around configuration for my 20D. It's also tack-sharp, has a constant f2.8 and as good as my 70-200 2.8 IS regarding IQ (maybe better). Paired with the 10-22, I rarely am left wanting for focal length. If I need more for sports, I'll pull out the 70-200.

I agree with Dan also about not short-changing your current kit. Get what works for what you have now, then sell it later if necessary. That way, you'll have the best glass possible for whatever body you have at that time. I stopped worrying about the EF-S thing and have been enjoying them ever since.

yohan81718

how about 16-35 II

you can drop your 17-85
and you'd be left with 16-35, 50, 70-200, and 100
seems to be a good line ups there

Handruin

I started looking into the 16-35mm II last night but it became 1:30AM and I needed to get some sleep for work. I plan to look for more reviews on it this evening. It wouldn't bother me if I'm missing the range between 35 and 50. I'd rather have the wider aspect than the zoom anyways. The downside is that cost of that lens.

The more I read reviews and the more I see sample comparisons, the more I realize none of these lenses will have the same clarity as my 50mm F/1.4 prime. I've seen samples comparing many of the different lenses and the 50mm always has a nice clean image. Likewise that's been my findings so far. It's a tough task to make a zoom become as clear as a prime.

waTSX

It's difficult for any zoom to completely match the IQ of a good prime, to be sure, but today's higher-end zooms are as good as they've ever been and very close to primes regarding IQ. So close, in fact and IMO, that the difference is largely neglible. The convenience of a zoom is tough to beat. Speed and compactness are where primes really shine (and IQ, obviously).

danny25

this site has been posted around here before, but I figured just in case you hadn't seen it...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/

Reviews on every Canon lens and how they compare to each other.

guia x

I like the sharpness of my thrifty 50 (thanks fdl for getting that stuck in my vocabulary ) but it's just a pain it the but moving around all the time. That's why I am looking for a nice sharp zoom lens to replace my kit lens. The convenience alone is well worth it.

waTSX

50mm is definitely a bit of an awkward length on a 1.6 body, but, regardless, I love my 50mm f1.4. It's a great lens. As far as sharpness is concerned, it's tough to beat the EF-S 17-55. It's kind of pricey, but I've found it's worth it. I believe Tamron makes a nice offering in that range also, that's more affordable. The IS of the Canon is tough to beat, though.

ChodTheWacko

Oh, but the 10-22 is a wonderful landscape lens on the 20D.
It's hard to appreciate how fun wide angle is till you get one.

You can always crop a pic if you lack zoom, but if you want to go wider, that's too bad. So it's more practical to stay on the wide side.

I can also eventually see myself getting a full frame thing later.
So what? Sell it and lose A couple of hundred bucks
for a couple of years of fun? That's a bargain by almost any
entertainment standards.

- Frank

waTSX

yohan81718

depends...
I've used 16-35mm on 5D.. which should be relatively similar to 10-22mm on cropped body (1.6x)... you really don't have that many pictures to take at 16mm to fully appreciate its value... your sides gets this stretch-y feeling...

also, cropping a picture is not same as using zoom lens, and i know for sure you know that for your life... on top of that, cropping a picture that's taken at ultra wide angle shots are gonna be way off.. and that, you probably know too..

ChodTheWacko

If people are in the picture of the 10-22 I find I need to use PS to undistort a pic, otherwise people look funky, worse the closer you are to 10 and the more on the sides of the pic they are. Landscapes tend to be fine.

Yes, you are right regarding cropping of UW pics.
I love my 10-22 but couldn't see myself using it as a single lens solution.

Cropping your way into tighter framing is far easier
than trying to panorama your way into a wider angle picture.
It's not the same, no, but I think the results are usually acceptable.

moeronn

Isn't the 10-22 on the crop body is still 10-22 equivolent, because it is an EF-S Lens? Or and I completely misunderstanding the different lens mounts?

jupitersolo

No, you have to multiply the mm by 1.6 for most of Canon's cropped bodies, I think one of their bodies is 1.4 (but I can't remember where I saw this); so a 10-22mm becomes 16-35mm even if it's a EF-S lens.

Handruin

Do any of you guys find yourself using primes more than zooms? I know the zoom of a lens makes it more flexible, but I'm finding myself loving the clarity of my 50mm F/1.4. I took 150 pictures today of my friend's kid and the sharpness is just fantastic. I don't get anything this close even with my 70-200 L lens (and I know why...but I'm just saying).

Are there any of you who only use primes even though they aren't as flexible?

Dan Martin

I sold my 24-70 and shoot with a 50mm whenever I need something in that range. I thought I'd miss the zoom, but I really don't. It might be nice to add a 35mm one day, but I'm not rushing out to get one right away.

yohan81718

my brother has 35mm f/1.4 L and 50mm f/1.4... from the looks of pictures he's been taking between 35mm and 50mm... it's 35mm hands down...
there's reason why L lens have red stripes
however, some L lenses are over-priced in my opinion

Handruin

So you're saying even the 35mm is noticeably nicer than the 50mm F/1.4? I'm fairly impressed with the 50mm as it stands now. I'd love to see what the pictures look like even with a nicer camera body (1D series).

Handruin

Here are a few from yesterday with the 50mm:

EuRTSX

haha awww that cat is so cute

cl_jay

Here is a link that has a list of a lot of lenses, and sample images for each. To make it easier for you, I am also linking to the 35mm f/1.4 L.

List of lenses:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...chive+35mm+1.4

35mm:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=277475

danny25

the 1D's use a 1.3 multiplier.

swong

How come no one consider the EF 24-105 F/4L IS ??

cl_jay

The OP said he didn't really want it.

moeronn

Since the EF-S mount lenses only fit 1.6 crop bodies (at least now) why the hell don't they just give it the actual effective 35 mm equivolents?

ChodTheWacko

Because focal length is a specific measure of something, and so that's how it's listed.

It's even more annoying for pocket cameras, where my SD800IS has a max
focal lengh of 4.6mm (28mm equivalent).

Some people actually shaved off the back of the 10-22 and got it to fit on a 1.3x I think. It had major vignetting and the mirror comes really close
to smashing against the back of the lens. Not something to try at home.

- Frank

jupitersolo

You can read more about the ef-s lenses here, it explains why they're different the a normal ef lens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount