Lens Dilema

[Yellow_Fuzzy]

Hi all,

Im having a bit of difficulty diciding which lens I should go for, im in no rush to buy so waiting a few months isnt really a problem for me. Im looking for a lens for general walkabout and portraits and events(low-light).

When i looked at the specs on the new 17-55mm EF-S i was very excited, until I looked at the price tag, $2000 AUD (RRP), same as the 24-105L f/4.0(cheapest street price $1700 AUD). I also looked at the 24-70mm L which has an RRP of $2700 AUD but can be seen on the street for bit over $2000. Looking at these prices im really starting to lean more towards the 24-70mm L, which may only end up costing a few hundred extra and as a result get the L build quality, EF mount and a known reliable lens.

Any comments or suggestions?

Regards,
Zac

[accord]

You buy 17-55 for the range. Neither the EF lenes can give you the wide end!

[Yellow_Fuzzy]

Yeh, but overall I wont be shooting much landscape, mabye a few everynow and then if im on holiday or something and atm I really dont mind the kit lens for that.

[Andy_T]

You buy 17-55 for the range. Neither the EF lenes can give you the wide end!

... apart from the 17-40/4.0 and the 16-35/2.8, if it has to be f/2.8...

Best regards,
Andy

[accord]

17-55 f2.8 IS will be a killer in-door walk around lens. The other L lenses staring with 17mm do not have IS and less range.

[Yellow_Fuzzy]

Yeh, im just not sure if it is worth paying so much for a lens just for the IS.

[accord]

Yes, I share your view. However the 16-35 f/2.8 is more expensive if you need f/2.8. If you go for the IS of the efs, you lost EF compatability.

I believe the efs will be as good optically of an L. If you think you may go ff in the very very near future, don't buy the efs. Or otherwise, you can always sell the efs for an L when you get a ff body.

[nation]

IS on a focal length up to 55mm I just don't understand. If you're happy with the 24mm then definitely go the 24-70. Given the pricing it looks like a bargain compared to the others you mentioned. My 24-70 is virtually glued to my 20D body and you'll find a lot of others here for whom the consistantly dependable IQ of the 24-70 means that that lens is their daily work horse.

[jjonsalt]

IS has and can have it's own issues. I wouldn't pay extra for the feature myself as I don't feel the need. The 24-70L (which I have) is one really nice piece of glass.

[nitsch]

IS on a focal length up to 55mm I just don't understand.

Why not? I push the IS to it's limits at the 17-24mm end of my 17-85 IS fairly frequently. I wouldn't be without it. It frees up your creativity in so many situations which would otherwise demand at least the use of a monopod if not a tripod and it's not always practical to use either of these. But then I'm a huge IS fan, ever since I got the 70-300 DO I was hooked, I appreciate that it is not something that everyone rates so highly.

[alexanderjba]

I was saved by the IS just yesterday taking some night shots... Trying to photograph buildings, scenery, etc. with cars trailing head/taillights in the foreground / background, and everything kept coming out not quite right. (I had forgotten to flick the IS on.) Switched it on, and poof, sharp images. Was very skeptical about IS before purchasing my 17-85 (as I had never used an IS lens before) but given the chance, I would totally get it (and pay more for it) again. As for the short range of the new EF-S (17 to only 55), I think of all the times that I've used the IS not for teleshots, but wideangle shots with slow shutter speeds (b/c its dark). The 2.8 on the new lens will help with that, but the IS is an added bonus (which you do pay for).

If its anything like the 17-85 or 10-22 in build quality, and as sharp, I'm in for sure... Granted I haven't used some of the magical 'L' lenses that everyone says are built better, but for me, the make and feel of the 70-200 f/4L is only marginally better than my 17-85.

[Elton Balch]

Hi all,

Im having a bit of difficulty diciding which lens I should go for, im in no rush to buy so waiting a few months isnt really a problem for me. Im looking for a lens for general walkabout and portraits and events(low-light).

When i looked at the specs on the new 17-55mm EF-S i was very excited, until I looked at the price tag, $2000 AUD (RRP), same as the 24-105L f/4.0(cheapest street price $1700 AUD). I also looked at the 24-70mm L which has an RRP of $2700 AUD but can be seen on the street for bit over $2000. Looking at these prices im really starting to lean more towards the 24-70mm L, which may only end up costing a few hundred extra and as a result get the L build quality, EF mount and a known reliable lens.

Any comments or suggestions?

Regards,
Zac

Canon had issues with early copies of the 24-105; I would generally be leary of buying the 17-55 until the lens proved itself in the "real world". The 24-70 f/2.8 and 17-40 f/4 are still generating threads about Canon quality control too so there is no easy answer to the quality issue. That said, all three of my L's are great copies and I'd recommend the 24-70 without hesitation, based on my own experience. Many here really like the Sigma 24-70 as well and it is much less money. I do love my L lenses though!!

[SuzyView]

Yeah, Elton. I love my new 24-70L because it is so fast and I took 150 pictures at the school without a flash because every kid would have had red eye no matter what flash I used. I didn't adjust any of the 100 pictures I had printed at Costco for the display and it was still very good. But I think I will wait to see how the 17-55 measures up. As stated before, it isn't L quality, apparently, but I think my 85 1.8 would give any L lens a run for it's money for the cost. :)

[Andy_T]

My Sigma 30/1.4 EX is a great walk-around-lens :lol:

OK, I might have to move a bit more with my feet, but otherwise it's brilliant.

Best regards,
Andy