Help...my hubby is driving me insane about his next lens purchase!

riskytrader wrote in post #2367273
Ouch...you're not exactly a nice guy are you?! Ahh well, to each their own!

He is on this site however like the double edged sword the internet is no matter how many reviews you read there are opinions out there that contradict everything which make you second guess your decision. It's like the ongoing sigma vs canon L debate in an earlier thread. I'm sure he'll feel more confident about his decision if I was on board as a lot of ppl are when it comes to purchases.

By the way, he also as an EF 50 mm f/1.8 II lens...well, that's what it says on the box I found.

Thanks for the replies so far.

I'm just blunt and prefer to nip things in the bud with solid facts rather than speculate back and forth. No offense intended whatsoever.

ScottE wrote in post #2367311
"L" is just a Canon marketing gimmick that he has bought into, probably from internet apostles, without considering whether it is better for his needs.

It's just a designator like EX for Sigma. Saying it's a gimmick is implying that there's never any quality behind that red letter, which we all know isn't true. People only ever seem to complain about the price...when they can't or don't want to afford it. I've never heard any rational complaints about the quality.

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2367333
It's just a designator like EX for Sigma. Saying it's a gimmick is implying that there's never any quality behind that red letter, which we all know isn't true. People only ever seem to complain about the price...when they can't or don't want to afford it. I've never heard any rational complaints about the quality.

the rude guy has a point j/k Don, you know we love your blunt style

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2367333
It's just a designator like EX for Sigma. Saying it's a gimmick is implying that there's never any quality behind that red letter, which we all know isn't true. People only ever seem to complain about the price...when they can't or don't want to afford it. I've never heard any rational complaints about the quality.

good point Cdi.

Really it's best if your husband clicks on then and tells us what he's wanting from the lens. Zoom or prime? Fast or light? What's the price range? What are his major concerns? You many think he does not need much of a zoom, but does he feel that way? It's just too hard to advise, 3rd party like.

My husband loves photography but he would never purchase a lens for me...he'd buy one for me, after I'd done my research and told him what I was wanting.

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2367327
I'm just blunt and prefer to nip things in the bud with solid facts rather than speculate back and forth. No offense intended whatsoever.

None taken So okay for my needs in terms of this new found photography hobby of his I need a solid lens that will take great portrait shots of our 2 year old son. Most indoor photography is what he'll be taking however we are also going to Vancouver and Whistler for the xmas holidays so some outdoor pictures would be nice too. Basically he can get whatever he wants so long as he's happy with it so the next 4-6 months. He's obsessed with sharpness and doesn't like the "soft" pictures so much.

I just look at things from a work perspective...I tell the business analysts what I need as an end user and they miraculously make it happen.

riskytrader wrote in post #2367354
None taken So okay for my needs in terms of this new found photography hobby of his I need a solid lens that will take great portrait shots of our 2 year old son. Most indoor photography is what he'll be taking however we are also going to Vancouver and Whistler for the xmas holidays so some outdoor pictures would be nice too. Basically he can get whatever he wants so long as he's happy with it so the next 4-6 months. He's obsessed with sharpness and doesn't like the "soft" pictures so much.

I just look at things from a work perspective...I tell the business analysts what I need as an end user and they miraculously make it happen.

There are still a LOT of lenses that fit that description. If you want indoors (without flash) that pretty much eliminates any slow-aperture zoom. Most f/2.8 zooms and primes of the same or faster aperture would probably work...although f/2.8 might be pushing it depending how well your home and/or the venue in question is lit.

4-6 months of satisfaction is a lot to ask for though...trust me I know. You're talking to a guy who just got into photography in June 2005 and has purchased approximately $10,000 since.

just get him the canon 17-55 2.8IS. great sharpness, great indoors, perfect walk around range, wide enough for most shots...

AeroSmith wrote in post #2367142
Here's a review:

http://www.breitbart.c​om …2006/12/07/D8LS​49T00.html

Of what, exactly?

ahmads
Junior Member

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24
Please help me decide on a 17-xx lens
Hello all,

I am new to photography. (Not counting taking snap shots with a P&S)
So here I am, another person asking for glass recommendation. I recently purchased the Rebel XTi with the kit lens. Since then I have also purchased the 50mm 1.8 which I have been playing around with exclusively for the last couple of weeks.

I would like to upgrade from the 18-55 kit lens to something better to use as a general purpose lens. I know that I "need" the wider 17/18mm focal length. I also know that I will be shooting indoors at least 30% of the time. The maximum I am willing to spend at this time is around $650, i.e. the cost of the 17-40mm L. There are so many choices so I am really confused, I generally believe in getting the best value for my money even if I have to spend a little more as long as there is a valid reason for the extra expenditure.

The pictures on the 17-40mm thread are just amazing but I wonder how much of it is the photographer vs the glass. Judging from the gear list, most of the photos posted on that thread were taken by pros with pro equipment.
If I go with the Sigma or Tamron brand, am I loosing anything else besides the build quality. The Sigma 17-70 and Canon 17-85 IS are really tempting because of the focal length range, but what will I be sacraficing. The fixed 2.8f 17-50 Tamron/Sigma lenses are also tempting because of the large aprature.

So many choices.. help [/SIZE][/SIZE]

So found hubby's post requesting help...funny he called me an hour ago to still say help...he still doesn't know. Oh I'm willing to let him spend around $1k. LOL...yes, I guess i wear the pants in the family

http://www.photography​-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=245482

Hubby here...

Really was not looking to spend that much although the 17-55 seems perfecet for all my needs. (it has everything that i would want the zoom range, wide aparature, IS, etc)

However, I am thinking of going "cheap" and getting the Sigma 17-70 for now. Curious, why no one even mentioned that lens on this thread. I figure I will use the 430 flash for indoor photography. Is the 17-55 really worth the additional $650 or so for someone who just bought his first dSLR a month ago?

The good news for you all and my wife is that I will be ordering something today so I will not be harrasing anyone until.. ummm... the next purchase

ahmads wrote in post #2367438
Hubby here...

Really was not looking to spend that much although the 17-55 seems perfecet for all my needs. (it has everything that i would want the zoom range, wide aparature, IS, etc)

However, I am thinking of going "cheap" and getting the Sigma 17-70 for now. Curious, why no one even mentioned that lens on this thread. I figure I will use the 430 flash for indoor photography. Is the 17-55 really worth the additional $650 or so for someone who just bought his first dSLR a month ago?

No one mentioned the 17-70 because they are all a bunch of gearheads that were told in the first post that an L would be fine. It is like dropping some blood in shark infested waters. I think it would be a great choice if you plan to use the flash for your indoor shots.

ahmads wrote in post #2367438
Hubby here...

Really was not looking to spend that much although the 17-55 seems perfecet for all my needs. (it has everything that i would want the zoom range, wide aparature, IS, etc)

However, I am thinking of going "cheap" and getting the Sigma 17-70 for now. Curious, why no one even mentioned that lens on this thread. I figure I will use the 430 flash for indoor photography. Is the 17-55 really worth the additional $650 or so for someone who just bought his first dSLR a month ago?

The good news for you all and my wife is that I will be ordering something today so I will not be harrasing anyone until.. ummm... the next purchase

Lol...didn't think u were going to go cheap! You're a brand whore and you know it ;P

The 17-55 is reputed to be a very good lens. It's fast, and the 2.8 aperture is a must for indoor shots. A friend of mine has this and loves it. Someone else said earlier on this thread that you don't want to go slower than 2.8 indoors and I do concur with that.

The tamron 17-50 is also 2.8 and supposed to be a great lens. And half the price of the 17-55. I have one tamron lens that I find to have excellent optics, even compared to my L's.

I would not hesitate on either of these. I don't personally know anyone that has the Sigma so I can't speak for it.

If you stick with the 2.8 or faster, whatever you choose should work for you.

The 17-55 is a great choice. You'd love it I bet. The sigma wasn't suggested likely because of it's variable aperture. Some are fine with it, some find it a pain and difficult to get consistent exposures in low light.

And don't forget those hot club shots that were promised.

riskytrader wrote in post #2367475
Lol...didn't think u were going to go cheap! You're a brand whore and you know it ;P

hahahahahahaha

I am and I know it. lol