17-55mm IS

Another which lens thread, but my question is this, would i be better buying the 50mm 1.4 for indoor work or the 17-55mm 2.8 IS as the IS i imagine would make it almost as capable as the 50mm and be a bit more versatile with the zoom.
I like the conveniance of Zoom as do a lot of folk, but need more speed for low light situations, if i buy the 50mm i will all most certainly buy the Sigma or Tamron 2?-7?mm 2.8 afterwards.
But if I get the 17-55mm IS it will be on it's own, if you know what i mean.

The eternal which one do i get question, please help my decision, the money issue is practically the same in both cases!

The 50 f/1.4 is effectively the 50 f/2.8, thus it compares directly aperture-wise to the 17-55.
The 50 f/1.4(2.8 ) is relatively inexpensive....it also exibits a very good IQ at f/2.8 and above. However, all else about the lens is lackluster and tired.

The 17-55 is in a different league altogether....a serious lens indeed.....without a peer in the industry. Its price reflects that. Here and there you might find some follks criticise its non-L type build and finish....those are typically the owners of a couple of L lenses who are still in daze over the red ring and a leatherette pouch.

However, the the only real limitation of the 17-55 is the EF-S mount. If your photography gravitates towards 1.3 FOVCF and FF camera bodies, then obviously the 17-55 is not for you.

I have the 17-55 f2.8 IS and love it! For indoor shots it's great and the IS is a must. Depends on the level of light you'll be shooting, the 50mm f1.4 will definitely give you better low light shots. I have a 50mm f1.8 and I find it unbeatable for low light, however, for overall versatility you can't go past the 17-55 f2.8 IS

If you do majority of low light shooting then I'd say the 50mm, otherwise go the 17-55 as an all-round lens.

It also depends on what you are shooting? Are you photographing moving people or stills? Are you opposed to using a bit of flash?

I have both and love them both, but I consider them to complement each other, and not compete. So go for both!

Your alteratives seem to be in two different directions with your 350D:

1) 50mm f/1.4 and Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, or
2) Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS

Alternative 1 puts you definitely into the wide normal to moderate telephoto range of focal lengths, with a fast short tele (50mm).
Alternative 2 puts you into the wide to short tele range of focal lengths.

A 50mm lens is not a 'normal' on any APS-C camera. You mention 'indoor work'...a 50mm is little good on your 350D, unless you are using it to shoot head and shoulder portraits indoors!

You could consider modifying Alternative 1 into Alternative 1b, by changing the Tamron 28-75 into a Tamron 17-50. Then 1b and 2 are more directly comparable, but 1b has the advantage of a fast f/1.4 vs. the Alternative 2 advantage of IS.

Set in your mind where in the focal length range YOU WANT to be. Is wide angle important to you at all? If so, Alternative 1 is not what you want! If you want wide angle, 1b or 2 are what you want!

Often there are difficult choices to make when deciding on what lens to purchase. Fortuneatly yours is not one of them- go with the 17-55 IS.

First, you'll be using the extra wide angle a lot. It's a more versatile focal range because of that.

Second, amazing optics, and image stabilization (which does make a difference even at these focal lengths)

Third, don't buy into the argument about it not being useable on a FF camera. If you don't own a FF camera now it isn't an issue. Buy what you need today (you can always sell it later if your needs change). It's like buying childrens clothes that are too big so they can grow into them- a bad idea. Buy what fits today.

I think the thing I like about the 17-55 is that you don't have to change lenses. Esp helpful if you're going backpacking ! (like me haha). It's just handy.

Wilt wrote in post #2261528
Your alteratives seem to be in two different directions with your 350D:

1) 50mm f/1.4 and Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, or
2) Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS

Alternative 1 puts you definitely into the wide normal to moderate telephoto range of focal lengths, with a fast short tele (50mm).
Alternative 2 puts you into the wide to short tele range of focal lengths.

A 50mm lens is not a 'normal' on any APS-C camera. You mention 'indoor work'...a 50mm is little good on your 350D, unless you are using it to shoot head and shoulder portraits indoors!

You could consider modifying Alternative 1 into Alternative 1b, by changing the Tamron 28-75 into a Tamron 17-50. Then 1b and 2 are more directly comparable, but 1b has the advantage of a fast f/1.4 vs. the Alternative 2 advantage of IS.

Set in your mind where in the focal length range YOU WANT to be. Is wide angle important to you at all? If so, Alternative 1 is not what you want! If you want wide angle, 1b or 2 are what you want!

thanks for that it made me look at it differently, i'd not considered the tamron, the canon just jumped out at me one day and to be honest between the 2.8 and IS i thought would put it in the same league as the 50mm 1.4 for low light performance. i'm swaying towards the 50mm 1.4 and the tamron 17-50 do i need the better build quality of the canon IS, i'm not a pro so would be able to live with the lesser build quality i think.

I personally think the 17-55 IS is the single best lens to use with flash, but the 50 f/1.4 may be better to use in low light with no flash. So if you are doing portraits and do not want to use a flash then I would get a 1.4 aperture lens. For everything else the 17-55 IS.

sm1rf wrote in post #2260665
Another which lens thread, but my question is this, would i be better buying the 50mm 1.4 for indoor work or the 17-55mm 2.8 IS as the IS i imagine would make it almost as capable as the 50mm and be a bit more versatile with the zoom.
I like the conveniance of Zoom as do a lot of folk, but need more speed for low light situations, if i buy the 50mm i will all most certainly buy the Sigma or Tamron 2?-7?mm 2.8 afterwards.
But if I get the 17-55mm IS it will be on it's own, if you know what i mean.

The eternal which one do i get question, please help my decision, the money issue is practically the same in both cases!

the 50 is an effective 80mm lens on you camera. i found the 50 to be either too long or too short on my 20d plus the zoom is going to focus better in low light.

i'd take the 17-55 without a second thought.

ed rader

I REALLY want the 17-55 but after spending 1500 2 days ago on the 30d and 17-85Is I will have to wait a while.

Oh well one day I will win the lotto and be able to get all the lenses I want.

Get the 17-55MM EF-S IS and don't look back. It is a solid decision and the right one to support your described photography style.

i too, am looking at this lens, but am seeing lots of complaints on it being a dust vaccuum....what is the cost on getting the insides cleaned?

blam wrote in post #2267135
i too, am looking at this lens, but am seeing lots of complaints on it being a dust vaccuum....what is the cost on getting the insides cleaned?

Just buy it new with a warranty; if it gets dusty and affects IQ, the vendor will probably replace or service it for free.

blam wrote in post #2267135
i too, am looking at this lens, but am seeing lots of complaints on it being a dust vaccuum....what is the cost on getting the insides cleaned?

i think the dust problem is just with some lenses. you should know pretty quickly if your 17-55 is a dust pump.

if so canon will clean it for free under warranty and hopefully correct the problem.

ed rader