MrChad

Image quality it will be the same as the L, the same UD and fluorite glass is used in the 17-55mm, right down to the fairly standard L zoom 77mm elements. The only thing you miss vs. and L is the build quality, that said you get a lighter lens too.

Canon clearly want's to keep the L's a FF/35mm type lens else the 17-55mm likely would have been designed as an L from the begining. I still think they could have put the hood in the box however.

guia x

Thanks guys. After all that you guys said, I think the 17-55 is the best choice. I have an XTi with the battery grip. I went to the camera store this afternoon and the 17-55 was not heavy at all and did not look that big. It is something I wouldn't mind carrying it around. I did not see the 24-70 so I don't know how it feels. The saleman told me about the 17-85 and I was contemplating it for a while until I saw the 24-70 tonight and the 17-85 was just not fast enough. My 70-300 is great but I wish it was faster. So I really want the 2.8. So I think the 17-55 will be it. The IS will be a big help as well.

That was in the back of my mind as well. Looks like I'll have to wait a bit longer.

cl_jay

Great choice. Give us a review when you get it.

MrChad

Trust me you don't need an L, not with the image quality you will recieve from the 17-55mm. One of the best things about the APS-C format is the luxury of the camera, and lenses to be smaller yet image quality still rivals 35mm.

The Rebel XTi with the 17-55mm EFS are a perfect example. Both are a lot smaller and lighter then dragging around a 5D or 1Ds and a 24-70L yet optically your results will be very-very good.

As for your 70-300 IS USM, this in reality is likely the best general purpose tele you can own, seriously. I own both a 70-200mm/2.8L and the older 75-300 IS USM. The latter is packed in the bag a lot more often, the reach and size make it an ideal travel lens. All of your Canon options are bigger lenses with less reach in most cases. None of the 70-200's have the reach and 100-400mm makes even my 70-200mm/2.8 look small.

I've been tempted to sell my 70-200/2.8L on many occasions for the 70-300 DO for no other reason then size.

wndrlst

bump

kyle77777

thanks! looks like all i need to know is right here and how to search i guess

wndrlst

De nada! Basically, if you're looking for more reach, you'll want a zoom lens. At that price range, you're very limited, but there are a couple of possibilities.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...6_III_USM.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._6_USM_II.html


This Sigma looks like a good possibility, for the money...gets better customer reviews than the others.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._6_APO_DG.html

Honestly, I know nothing about any of these lenses, though.

kyle77777

I think the Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 would work well for me. I don't need anything too extreme

streetracing901

Im am undecided between the 70-200 f4L or a EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. the 28-135 seems like a better go and use everywhere lens. But it didnt go so much good reviews and I also read that it isnt too well built. But the 70 - 200 seems to be too much of a zoom. Any help?

waTSX

The 70-200 is an "L" lens, with high quality build and great image quality. The non-IS version is also a great value and the least expensive of Canon's L lenses. Despite reviews to the contrary (and I've read good ones too), people who own the 28-135 seem happy with it. It's versatile and sharp (I do not own it). Build quality is in line with other consumer level lenses, that is to say, not L quality but not bad at all.

Another alternative is the EF-S 17-85, which matches the 28-135's focal range on 1.6 crop bodies. You'll also get a much better wide end.

wndrlst

If you're shooting on a cropped sensor, I'll second the vote for the EF-S 17-85. While not the sharpest lens I own, I've been happy with it. Great general purpose walk-around, and creates pleasing bokeh.

Billiam

I own both the 28-135 IS and the 70-200 f/4 (non-IS). The 70-200 does indeed have noticeably better IQ. As everyone has said, consider the 17-85 instead of the 28-135 if you're on a cropped body.

FWIW- The 70-200 f/4 is a physically long lens but it is not at all heavy to carry around. I can't speak for the newer IS version though.

drigo

just ordered the 50mm f/1.8 from BH for $79.90 shipped...i almost picked it up at a local RITZ for around $16 more but decided i could wait and save a few bucks...

jupitersolo

You're going to enjoy that lens. And thanks for not buying at Ritz, I won't go into it, but I don't like them.

drigo

can't wait for it to arrive...care to elaborate on your Ritz experience? the reason i ask is...besides Circuit City& Bestbuy...Ritz is really the only "true" camera store around here that i know of...just want a heads up...thanks

wndrlst

Congrats!!

Re: the camera store thing...see if you can find a local Mom & Pop. If you can find a good one in your area, you'll likely get much better service, prices, and selection. There is one here that will match B&H's prices for "valued" customers.

kyle77777

I ended up buying the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 for my XT. I cant wait to get it! Also ordered a fisheye lens for kicks

drigo

thank you...good idea on looking for a "mom & pop" store...most stores i know regardless to what they sell won't match online prices...must be a great camera store you got there...

btw....thanks also for bumping this thread...

wndrlst

Yeah, they surprised me, too! Their prices aren't listed as being that low, but if you know to ask, they'll do it.

And, hey, no prob!

jupitersolo

I just seem to get the wrong person asking me if I need help. The last time I went in there, I was out of town and couldn't find anything other than a Ritz. I walked in asked for a blower, she had no idea what it was. After i found it, she checked me out, she said she had no idea what it was for. I asked her if she knew of another camera store in the Va. Beach area. She told me no, that they were the only on in the mall.

Plus Ritz and Wolf are priced about 20-30% more than B&HPhoto or amazon.com. If you can find a good mom&pop store try to use them as wndrlst said. They are hard to find, but well worth it. Because some of them are old timers and will talk to you about everything.

When ordering online, you don't pay tax and in some cases like amazon.com you don't pay shipping. I signed up for amazon prime. Everything is shipped 2day free.

NumberFive

I have that zoom lens. It's a great zoom lens for stationary or mostly stationary objects (perched birds, scenery, signs, etc). If you're into sports photography though, I'd highly recommend going with a faster lens if you like AF.

Mizouse

question, i may be considered going into glamour/modeling photography and i was wondering what lens would be good for it. also with that lens it would be replacing my 18-55kit lens

the only two lenses that come into mind are the 17-55 2.8 and the 24-70 2.8

i know this discussion was hammered already, but ive tried the 24-70 2.8 and like it, but it wasn't as wide as i would've liked.

what else is there?

wackjum

When looking for a portrait lens, you're going to want to look for the widest aperture to get some nice depth of field.

In 35mm days, 50mm, 70mm, 100mm, 130mm would be probably widely considered to be the prime [no pun intended] portrait lenses. But when you say glamour/model, this doesn't necessarily mean portrait. If you want full body shots, these lenses aren't going to be too useful. Less so on a cropped body.

24-70 is a good range for a full frame camera but again isn't so useful for a cropped body. I tend to not want to go with zooms for a "glamour" lens because I want absolute color quality and depth of field and few zooms are going to be wider than 2.8.

Did that help any?

17 may be the lowest I go before I fear serious distortion. But again, its a zoom and you lose that extra depth of field.


Glamour is such a huge field though. Without you telling us more specifically, you're just going to get general pointers (at least from me). If you don't have stand alone light kits, you're better off investing in some of those instead of a new lens for glamour work in my opinion.

Mizouse

i really have no idea on specifics, it was just an idea thats been in my head for a while and now i plan on attending some kind of workshop or something to learn about it and see if i like it from there.

if i wanted even shallower dof i do have a 50 1.8 to work with, but i heard if you go too shallow the persons eyes could be in focus but the tip of their nose will be oof.

im thinking since i also want to replace my kit lens i should go with the 17-55

and if this is something i really want to consider, im probably going to pick up this lighting kit from alienbees http://www.alienbees.com/digi.html

wackjum

You may not necessarily use the shallowest depth of field, but its another element available at your disposal. Glamour shots are all about control of the image. You have lighting, the model, and the environment at your fingertips to get across whatever purpose you have.

Few other situations in photography give you this level of control in the final image. Normally you only have the settings in your own camera to use. And maybe a flash.

Having shallower depth of field is just a tool that you won't necessarily use in every shot, but that you have available if need be.

Further, you may be able to use a zoom at 2.8, but it will probably have to be stopped down a few to provide better sharpness. Only primes really perform well wide open. And even if you stopped down one on a 1.4 lens, you're still at 2.0, as opposed to 4.0 on a 2.8 zoom.

But its just something to consider. I say lighting is going to be your biggest need. You may also want to look into the 17-40L f4 to save some money.

moeronn

Miz - the other, very important, thing you're going to need are...











models.

soopa

Sigma 10-20 or Canon 10-22 and why?

Dan Martin

I've tried all of the UWA lenses for cropped bodies and the Canon was the best. The Tamron 12-24 was also good, but that 2mm difference is pretty big and I didn't like the somewhat loud autofocus. The Sigma was a distant 3rd with soft corners and a ton of CA.

What it boiled down to was the extra $200 for the canon over the other two was well worth it IMO.

cl_jay

For what camera

soopa

Interesting. It's crazy how many varied opinions there are about these two lenses out there.

The Sigma seems to be either loved or hated while the Canon seems to get a fairly consistent Good to Great rating.

I figured it's best to take the opinion of someone I know, so I guess I'll go for the Canon. Fuck is it expensive tho!

soopa

40D

jupitersolo

Let me put this link out here again. I use the hell out of it, Thanks to Dan. Almost lens for Canon is on this site, with very good (informative) reviews about them, as well as camera bodies.

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

soopa

Suggestions for a close-up portrait lens?

i.e. something to get nice shots of the baby while he's on my lap, etc.

Dan Martin

When most people think of portrait lenses, they think of fast primes in the 50-85mm range, but since you're so close to your subject, you might want something wider. You could probably even just use the kit lens you have now.

The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens for portraits and it's priced around $100. Baby on the lap will be a little close for it, but you should probably still have one in the kit for when he's in the crib. It's probably your best bet for now.

Otherwise, you could upgrade the kit lens with a Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS or a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. They're both excellent multi-purpose lenses. The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 and EF-S 10-22 are my most used lenses.

soopa

The kit lens is a EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, it doesn't seem to be very good within 2 feet.

I'm thinking the 17-55 would be decent for close range and make a good walk-around as well?

soopa

Or maybe I should just get the 17-40 since I have the 28-135?

Dan Martin

I forgot that they changed the kit lens for the first batch of 40D's. They came out with a new IS version of the EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 that wasn't quite ready when the 40D's started shipping. It should be priced around $200 when it does finally make it to the shelves.

Of course the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a much better lens, but it's also like 5 times the price. I love the fast aperture, silent USM focus, and image stabilizer though. It's an ideal walk-around.

For the trip we're leaving for on Sunday, I'll bring both the 18-55 and the 17-55 to do some comparisons in the field. Optically, the 18-55 is really not bad at all, but it's a little slow for portraits.

Dan Martin

I just find that the 28-135 is a strange length on a cropped body. It's really not very wide nor is it very long.

I also had the 17-40 for about a year and really liked it. However, I sold it to buy the 10-22 because I wanted something wider. Then about a year later I bought the 17-55 for a walk around lens and have been very happy. The 40mm end of the 17-40 felt a little short to me, and f/4 is a tad slow in low light. It's a great landscape lens though.
I'd buy the EF-S 17-55 or the Tamron 17-50 today over the EF 17-40 f/4L.

soopa

I agree.

I don't know if I can swallow $1k on the 17-55, so the Tamron is def appealing.

The main appeal of the 17-40 is it's compact size and lightweight, but you're right I would probably grow weary of it's small aperture and limited range.

soopa

I'm going to order the 10-22 and a couple new CF cards today. I have to take a lot of real estate shots this month and it sounds like that's the lens to do it with.