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

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

Go cheap and get what you pay for...if you are not satisfied with the performance of what you already have....why would you buy a compromise lens that is at best a marginal improvement? Spend your money wisely. Skip the Sigma...I've seen some good results with the Tamron...but since rumor has it that you are a brand whore....stick with buying lenses that are specifically engineered to fit Canon gear...buy Canon.

Are you a man, or are you a 'brand whore'? That is the question.

(One saves you money, the other gives you status with a lot of folks on POTN who bow to the L god)

Wilt wrote in post #2367556
Are you a man, or are you a 'brand whore'? That is the question.

(One saves you money, the other gives you status with a lot of folks on POTN who bow to the L god)

Since you put it that way I am a man!

ahmads wrote in post #2367438
Is the 17-55 really worth the additional $650 or so for someone who just bought his first dSLR a month ago?

Just because you're new to dslr's isn't any reason to short yourself on gear. If you can help it, don't buy something that will limit your potential. Get something that will let you grow into it, and let you grow as a photographer.

17-55 sounds right up your alley. The IS will help a bit in low light, although 2.8 is bare minimum for real "low light" situations. I use f/1.4-f/2 most of the time. Remember...IS steadies you, not your subject. It helps you handhold lower shutter speeds. If you want to get the faster shutter speeds, grab a fast prime. The 35L at f/1.4 (roughly the same cost) would give you a "normal" field of view, and while not being wide angle, it would give you a much faster shutter speed than 2.8. Say you're getting 1/15 with the 17-55 at 2.8, which wouldn't be uncommon in low light. Now..you could handhold that with that lens, but good luck getting a sharp person. Simply movements are far too fast for 1/15. At f/1.4, you'd get 1/60, all other options being equal. Now that'd probably freeze people fine if they're not doing gymnastics.

It's all in what you need. Just give whichever lens a try. See if you can rent one from a local store for a weekend. Try it out, and it'll tell you which way you need to lean.

I found, as most everyone here has, that you buy a few lenses and use them for a time and see what environments you mainly shoot in and where you feel too tight (i.e. too long), or too shallow (too wide) for your subject matter. Just buy a good zoom and a decent prime and you should be fine, then trade up as necessary using the marketing area of the forum.

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #2367571
Just give whichever lens a try. See if you can rent one from a local store for a weekend. Try it out, and it'll tell you which way you need to lean.

Or you can do like Ronald and buy something, sell it, buy it again, sell it again, buy it again,...well by now you get the idea.

buy the 17-55 IS. no sense in buying a cheaper lense and then buying another lens, why buy twice?!

i don't undersatnd why people go for 'cheaper' lenses and end up paying more in the long run to get that 'special' lens they wanted in the first place.

I second the 17-55 IS

Its very high on my list of lenses I want/need. I plan on selling the Tamron 28-75 to fund this as well.

SmuckerS2 wrote in post #2367639
buy the 17-55 IS. no sense in buying a cheaper lense and then buying another lens, why buy twice?!

i don't undersatnd why people go for 'cheaper' lenses and end up paying more in the long run to get that 'special' lens they wanted in the first place.

What if the cheaper lens turns out to work just fine? Then you have saved money. I really want the 300 f/4 but can't afford it so I got a 1.4 TC to add to my 70-210 for the reach. Is it the same? No. But does it give me the reach with good enough IQ until I can get the 300? ABSOLUTELY!

If the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is too expensive, get the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. It is as sharp as (if not sharper than) the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. And it is a lot cheaper (about $450). The only thing you lose is the "IS" function.

The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 is also very sharp for about $400.

So if you do not want to spend $1000 for the Canon, get Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 for less than half as much (Sigma will not go wrong either).

hmmm.. okay what filter/hood will I need to purchase along with the 17-55? I still feel the 17-55 is overpriced from what I have read about the build quality. It seems very comparable to Tamron in every respect but has IS on top yet Canon is charging another $500. What gives?

ahmads wrote in post #2367673
hmmm.. okay what filter/hood will I need to purchase along with the 17-55? I still feel the 17-55 is overpriced from what I have read about the build quality. It seems very comparable to Tamron in every respect but has IS on top yet Canon is charging another $500. What gives???

Lenses with IS always cost more...and usually Canon (or it's Nikon counterpart) will cost more than the other brands. I'm not sure why they put IS on such a short, light, fast lens either...it almost seems unnecc.

17-55??? WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT's not an L lense?!!

haha i now look for the red line.

I'd suggest either the Sigma 17-70 or the 18-50. They both reach f/2.8 (17-70 only at the wide end), and take very nice photos from all that I've seen on here. I don't think it's really worth it spending another $500 on a lens with average build quality just for IS (and as you have a flash, and will often be photographing moving kids - I wouldn't think you'd need it that much).

People here will always suggest the absolute best, and usually the most expensive, because it isnt their money.

Do whats best for you. If you are going to be using a flash indoors anyway, then you might not need a lens that is f/2.8. It all depends on how much lowlight shooting you do. You could get a nice f/4 lens and save hundreds of dollars, and just use your flash if you are going to be shooting low light (assuming you will be allowed to use a flash, flash in nightclubs are usually no problem).