Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 25 Sep 2007 (Tuesday) 23:16
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17-55 IS or 10-22 + 28-135 IS

 
Lostboy77
Senior Member
Avatar
418 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Lincoln, CA
     
Sep 25, 2007 23:16 |  #1

Ok, so here's the story. I now have a 40D (softly crying about loss of my 5D), and I have a 50 1.4 and 100 2.0 that are not going anywhere (I absolutely love these lenses regardless of what camera they are on). I'm not really happy with the 28 1.8 so it's going back.

The big question is . . . do I sell the 28-135IS that came with my camera and pick up a 17-55IS or do I just add a 10-22? I can't afford to have both so don't bother recommending it.

Background: I love shooting wide but for some reason don't miss it much when I don't have it (I know it's weird but that's just me). I mostly use the 50 1.4 because a lot of my photography takes place indoors and I'm not a big fan of flash. My favorite photos almost always have a shallow depth of field.

What do you recommend and why?


Canon EOS M50 - EOS M
EF-m 15-45mm IS STM - EF-m 18-55mm IS STM - EF-m 22mm f/2 STM
EF-s 55-250mm IS STM - EF 50mm f/1.8 STM - Speedlite 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
cy88
Senior Member
Avatar
818 posts
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
     
Sep 25, 2007 23:22 |  #2

I used to have 28-135IS + Sigma 10-20 not too long ago, I find myself switching lenses quite often because the 28 on a 1.6x crop is just not wide enough. Ever since I switched to 17-55, I haven't touched the 10-20. In fact, I even took the filter from it (same 77mm) and use it on my 17-55 ;)

I personally would suggest 17-55IS, then add a sigma 10-20 when the price is right. The quality on the Sigma is on par with the Canon, and save you quite a few bucks! You will appreciate having the best walkabout lens (for crop) over having a so-so one, since it'll be on your camera probably 90% of the time.


6D | 5D2 | 24L II | 35L | 85L II | 100L | Panasonic GX7 | Olympus 12/2.0 | Panasonic 20/1.7
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kevindar
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,050 posts
Likes: 38
Joined May 2007
Location: california
     
Sep 25, 2007 23:53 |  #3

I agree with cye on the quality of sigma 10-20. however, I would buy that lens first. If you say you are not really missing the wide end much and living with the 28-135, just keep it.


My Flickr (external link)
Gear List
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1205576

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
krepta
I swear I'm Ken Rockwell!
Avatar
8,482 posts
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Sep 26, 2007 03:14 |  #4

Lostboy77 wrote in post #4008437 (external link)
[...] a lot of my photography takes place indoors and I'm not a big fan of flash. My favorite photos almost always have a shallow depth of field.

From this comment, the 17-55 IS would better suit your needs. Yes, you already have a great low-light prime in the 50 1.4, but having a zoom in addition gives you more versatility. I have both of these lenses and they are the ones I used most often.


Alex | flickr (external link) | Gear & Feedback | Food! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gardengirl13
Goldmember
Avatar
1,798 posts
Joined Feb 2006
Location: US
     
Sep 26, 2007 08:32 |  #5

The 17-55 (unless you use a flash) will not be as good as your 50 prime in low light inside shots. And inside, unless you're taking a group shot or the whole room, you don't really need zoom too much, foot zoom works great inside. If you're happy with the kit lens keep it. If you don't really need anything wider, wait until you do to buy something. You could always go for the sigma 17-70 for something cheaper.

Maybe invest in a flash and a tripod for now instead.


photos (external link)
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1205171

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikep00
Member
81 posts
Joined Jun 2007
     
Sep 26, 2007 09:14 |  #6

I have used the 28-135mm and had to sell it. 28mm on my 30d was not wide enough and I found the lens soft for my personal tastes. I like my images to be crisp.... and that just didn't happen with the 28-135mm until I stopped down a ton (f/8+ before I was remotely happy. My Tamron 17-50mm is sharper at f/2.8 than the 28-135mm ever could be.)

I would take the 17-55mm IS (I love that lens and will be getting one myself soon) in a heart beat.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
krepta
I swear I'm Ken Rockwell!
Avatar
8,482 posts
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Sep 26, 2007 19:35 |  #7

gardengirl13 wrote in post #4010557 (external link)
The 17-55 (unless you use a flash) will not be as good as your 50 prime in low light inside shots.

I agree that it is not as good, but the difference is minimal, really. I rarely use flash (because I do not like it), but my low-light indoor shots with the 17-55 still look great. Funny enough, I use the 17-55 more often than the 50 indoors. It may be because the combination of small indoor spaces and the 1.6 bodies make 50mm slightly more difficult to work with. Just for me, anyway.


Alex | flickr (external link) | Gear & Feedback | Food! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tomsem
Member
Avatar
166 posts
Joined Feb 2007
Location: Sioux Falls,SD
     
Sep 26, 2007 21:38 as a reply to  @ krepta's post |  #8

My experience so far has been on par with krepta. I find the 17-55 to be very good indoors without flash. The convienence of a zoom ( and wider angle) and IS makes me use this more often than the 50. The 50 can go to f1.4 but the depth of field can be too small for many shots for me. I may think about selling my 50 due to the 17-55.

I have the 10-22 also and think the 17-55 and 10-20(22) makes a great pair. The 10mm end even on a crop is VERY wide and I don't use it as often. It may be slightly more of a specialty lens for me, anyway. Some say they use it all the time. You can always get one first and one later on. Good luck in your decision!


50D,10-22,17-55IS,85 f1.8, 100 f2.8 Macro,70-200f4ISL,100-400L,Kenko 1.4TC & Ext. tubes, 580ex flash

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dtngo
Senior Member
Avatar
266 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Sydney, AUS
     
Sep 26, 2007 22:35 |  #9

I have the 17-55, 10-22 and 50 f/1.4, and all are very much loved.

I haven't used the 50 in a couple months, but that's because the 17-55 and 10-22 and relatively new so I'm still getting used the novelty of a new toy(s).


Dac | www.dtngo.com (external link)
Canon 5D | 350D + BGE3 | 17-40L | 24-70L | 50mm f/1.4 | 85mm f/1.8 | 70-200 F4L
| 430ex

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cy88
Senior Member
Avatar
818 posts
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
     
Sep 27, 2007 09:44 |  #10

krepta wrote in post #4014588 (external link)
I agree that it is not as good, but the difference is minimal, really. I rarely use flash (because I do not like it), but my low-light indoor shots with the 17-55 still look great. Funny enough, I use the 17-55 more often than the 50 indoors. It may be because the combination of small indoor spaces and the 1.6 bodies make 50mm slightly more difficult to work with. Just for me, anyway.

I agree. For a crop sensor, 50mm is not the most flexible focal length you would want on your prime. I would assume the image quality would be very similar, except the 50mm F1.4 that the OP has will give a much better bokeh (even tho the 17-55's is not bad).


6D | 5D2 | 24L II | 35L | 85L II | 100L | Panasonic GX7 | Olympus 12/2.0 | Panasonic 20/1.7
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rkkwan
Member
134 posts
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Hong Kong
     
Sep 27, 2007 10:18 as a reply to  @ cy88's post |  #11

I have similar lens combination as the previous few posters, and the 10-22 and 17-55IS combination really works well for me. For travel, those are only lens I take.

The 17-55IS is really great indoors with low light, and it's generally wide enough. The 10-22 is great and fun, but with largest aperture at 3.5 and no IS, I do get some shake when shooting many churches indoors; or I have to crank the ISO to 1600 (which isn't that great on my 400D/XTi before I upgraded recently). I often shoot multiple shots to make sure I can a clean one with the 10-22 in dark churches.

Before the 17-55IS, I had the 17-85IS. At one wedding I attended as guest, I forgot to take my 50mm (1.8 at that time, before I traded up to 1.4). f4-5.6 inside a dark church means I cannot stop action at all - all the shots with the principals walking down the aisle are unusable. The 28-135/3.5-5.6 will have the same limitation; and actually worse because of the longer focal range. So, it will be pretty useless for indoor action.


rkkwan.zenfolio.com (external link)
5D/BG-E4; 70-200/2.8L IS II, Sigma 8-16, Tamron 28-75 Asph, Tokina 10-17 Fish, 1.4x III; 580EX II; G7 X
Full Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RichNY
Goldmember
Avatar
1,817 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Sep 2006
     
Sep 27, 2007 13:02 |  #12

Having both I'd start with an ultrawide and then switch out to the 17-55 down the road. The 17-55 beats the glass you've got know but the 10-22 gives you a whole new focal range to shoot at.


Nikon D3, D300, 10.5 Fisheye, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, Zeiss 100 f/2, 105 f/2.5, 200 f/4 Micro, 200 f/2, 300 f/2.8, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, SB-800x4, SB-900, SU-800, (3) Sunpak 120J (2) Profoto Acute 2400s,Chimera softboxes, (4)PW Multimax, (6) C-stands, (3) Bogen Superbooms, Autopoles

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lostboy77
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
418 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Lincoln, CA
     
Sep 27, 2007 17:04 as a reply to  @ RichNY's post |  #13

Ok, so here's the final decision (saying it like I mean it this time ;) )

Let me start off by saying thank you to everyone who contributed here, I have always found this forum to contain a wealth of useful information and experience, and even though it may sound like I’m not taking the majority of your advice, believe me in that I took everything that was said here under close consideration.

First off I have decided to forgo the 28-138 IS. My reasoning behind this is that I quickly found that this lens needs to be used either outdoors during the day or with a flash (for most things). In these situations, my G9 performed very close to sometimes better than my 40D and 28-135 (the G9 really is a great camera). I bought the G9 specifically for this type of shooting and find it's convenience over the larger setup to far overshadow it's limitations in these situations.

I have decided to pass of the 17-55 IS because looking around on here and on pBase reminded me of why I sold my copy of this lens in the first place. It flares something horrible when bright lights are in the frame. As this lens's primary strengths are low light shooting, there are often light sources in the frame causing ghosting and flare. In my preference (mind you these are my subjective feelings) flare is the worst offence of a lens scoring negative points for me above even corner softness, light fall off, and CA (the latter coming in a very close second for me). With the primary strength of this lens showing a glaring flaw 50% of the time (again my personal shooting style and feelings here) the justification for investing in it simply fell away.

In a stark contrast to my initial impression I am falling in love with the 28/1.8 and am going to keep it. I have found that where image quality is concerned, this lens is falls somewhere between my 50 f/1.4 and my 100 f/2 (which is a very narrow margin), with a build quality easily as good as the 100 f/2. All three of these lenses perform amazingly wide open and are all near perfect at f/2.8 with a ever so slight edge going to the 100 f/2. The added bonus of once again having a "normal" fast prime makes this lens a definite keeper. I don't know what I was thinking at first.

The now obvious hole in my setup is at the wide end. The decision to keep the 10-22 now seems obvious. This lens is very good at what it does and was one of the most painful sales for me when I graduated from the 20D to the 5D. Now that the purity of FF has finally lost most of its glamour with me (I know that I'm pretty much alone with this thought) and the financial need to trim down my equipment collection forced me to sell the 5D while it still retained much of its value, I am very happy to be able to reacquire this lens in my collection.

This leaves me with a very useful and good quality "every day" camera in the G9, as well as an extremely functional and very high quality "specialty" setup with the 40D, 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 100/2, and 10-22. The other obvious benefit of this setup is the relative low cost. The total here is around $3500 including the G9. To go one step up in quality with each component would be to acquire a 5D with a 35L, 85L, 135L and 17-40L (or 16-35L), a setup that would cost over $6500 (more so if you opted for the 16-35). At a price increase of around 100% for a return of (in my opinion) about a 10% overall increase in picture quality and functionality, I simply cannot justify the added expense as I am certainly not a professional or person with financial independence.

I’m sure that at some point my opinions will change again (as they always do) but for now I’m happy with this setup. I have always been a really big fan of primes as I feel that the pictures I take with them are always better than those I take with zooms. For those times when I want the convenience of a zoom I have the G9 which fills the convenience ticket with its size and weight as well.

Happy shooting!


Canon EOS M50 - EOS M
EF-m 15-45mm IS STM - EF-m 18-55mm IS STM - EF-m 22mm f/2 STM
EF-s 55-250mm IS STM - EF 50mm f/1.8 STM - Speedlite 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lostboy77
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
418 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Lincoln, CA
     
Sep 28, 2007 01:08 as a reply to  @ Lostboy77's post |  #14

BTW, my 5D, 35L, 24-70, and 70-200 f/4 IS are all up for local sale. PM me if you are interested. Otherwise they will go to a local camera shop on Monday.


Canon EOS M50 - EOS M
EF-m 15-45mm IS STM - EF-m 18-55mm IS STM - EF-m 22mm f/2 STM
EF-s 55-250mm IS STM - EF 50mm f/1.8 STM - Speedlite 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,192 views & 0 likes for this thread
17-55 IS or 10-22 + 28-135 IS
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Dirtstar
863 guests, 224 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.