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

ScottE wrote in post #2367311
I also agree that the 17-55 f/2.8 is a much better walk around lens than the 17-40 for his XTi.

Tell your husband to get off the internet and get a life. "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.

"L" isn't a marketing gimmick. If you take any of Canon's NON-L lenses and compared them side by side to the "L" counterpart you can surely see a difference in quality. Now, when GM put Cadilac badges and labels on the Chevy Cavalier and called it the Cimarron...

Maybe image quality can be close, but build quality is never close. Take the 28-105mm F/3.5-4.5 and compare it to either the 24-70mm L f/2.8 or the 24-105mm and compare them side by side. All three lenses produce nice images, and I actually have the 28-105mm lens. I really like the lens. It isn't an "L" but the images it is capable of are just great. However, I'd be full of crap if I tried to say it was even remotely close in quality to the two "L" lenses I mentioned. It really is not.

Anyone but me just waiting for the pictures of the hot friends....I mean 6 pages already..

lungdoc wrote in post #2372213
Anyone but me just waiting for the pictures of the hot friends....I mean 6 pages already..

HAHA!!! I was just wondering that myself.

Oh well...

lungdoc wrote in post #2372213
Anyone but me just waiting for the pictures of the hot friends....I mean 6 pages already..

haha I told u guys the party is on the 15th. I may hit up a club tomorrow but won't take the camera...at least not the SLR...u guys don't appreciate any pics not taken by an SLR eh?

forkball wrote in post #2371797
"L" isn't a marketing gimmick. If you take any of Canon's NON-L lenses and compared them side by side to the "L" counterpart you can surely see a difference in quality. Now, when GM put Cadilac badges and labels on the Chevy Cavalier and called it the Cimarron...

Maybe image quality can be close, but build quality is never close. Take the 28-105mm F/3.5-4.5 and compare it to either the 24-70mm L f/2.8 or the 24-105mm and compare them side by side. All three lenses produce nice images, and I actually have the 28-105mm lens. I really like the lens. It isn't an "L" but the images it is capable of are just great. However, I'd be full of crap if I tried to say it was even remotely close in quality to the two "L" lenses I mentioned. It really is not.

You miss the point. Canon could make the same lens and not put an L on it. The only reason they put an L on it is to increase sales. The L in itself does nothing to improve lens quality. Yes, they reserve the L for their better quality lenses, but the only reason it is there is let people who are buying lenses know which lenses Canon wants them to buy. Without the L, knowledgeable photographers would buy the lens because of its quality. With the L, less knowledgeable photographers will buy the lens because the marketing works.

ScottE wrote in post #2373165
You miss the point. Canon could make the same lens and not put an L on it. The only reason they put an L on it is to increase sales. The L in itself does nothing to improve lens quality. Yes, they reserve the L for their better quality lenses, but the only reason it is there is let people who are buying lenses know which lenses Canon wants them to buy. Without the L, knowledgeable photographers would buy the lens because of its quality. With the L, less knowledgeable photographers will buy the lens because the marketing works.

Agree, in part...the L means that the lens has quality construction materials that will better withstand the harsh usage and handling that pros will subject their equipment to. The L means that the lens is better able to withstand environmental factors (sleet, rain, dust, etc) that pros would continue to shoot in, where most enthusiasts would rapidly duck in for a drink and popcorn in front of the TV. The white color is not to 'look professional' but to ward off the effects of the hot sun during pro sporting events.

Canon makes non-L lenses that will give L lenses a real run for the optical quality money, but they fall short on the ability to withstand harsh environments and physical abuse. They cost less, as a result. It is hard for people to understand that there are prime lenses without L designation that outperform L zooms!

It has been the result of easy-to-influence amateurs who think "L must be better for everything...the pros use them!" that Canon has benefitted from more photographers (not just pros) who are willing to pay the price premium that the L designation brings.

As has been said, Ansel Adams owned no L lenses, yet his photography is admired widely.

The Canon 50 f/1.4 is not an L lens, and I don't know of any lenses that have withstood more abuse than some of those things.

riskytrader wrote in post #2367436
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

OK, look. First let's clear this cloud of confusion.

The number 1, uno, de primo priority here. Taking great photos of you and your hot girlfriends. Your hubby sounds soo serious about all this, I really think that a good drinking party, all recorded on his new 17-55 f2.8 IS will cure him but good! Now; I wouldn't be recommending that lens if it weren't the absolute best lens for that task.

'nuf said?

lungdoc wrote in post #2372213
Anyone but me just waiting for the pictures of the hot friends....I mean 6 pages already..

I now understand why this thread on "advice" is 6 pages long.

The EF-S 17-55 2.8 is most likely canons sharpest zoom lens and it scratches the limit of the 350D's sensor and most likely the XTI's as well. This lens only works on 1.6x crop bodies like the XT, XTI, and 30D. It won't work on a 5D and 1D. It is made for APS-C sensor camera's but not the older Canon 10D

Here is s review of the 17-55 f2.8 IS
http://www.photozone.d​e …s/canon_1755_28​/index.htm

Or you could go the 24-70L or 24-105L they work on all Canon bodies.

If he is not planing to upgrade to a 5D or 1D you can't get better than the 17-55 f2.8 IS. It also has Image stabiliser.

Other cheaper lenses that have superior optics to regular lenses are;

24-85 f3.5-4.5 USM
http://www.photozone.d​e …canon_2485_3545​/index.htm

28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM
http://www.photozone.d​e …n_28135_3556_is​/index.htm

If you want to get a general purpose lens that could cover just about every use would be the 28-300 f3.5-5.6 L IS
http://www.photozone.d​e …anon_28300_3556​/index.htm

It's not that wide on a XTI but but covers a huge range and if you could only bring one lens this would be it, but it is a push and pull zoom.
It does have a great Image stabiliser.

This lens can't be fitted with extenders!

So he got the Tamron 17-50 and tonight's the night of the party! I'll be posting the pics up tomorrow so be sure to be brutally honest about how they turned out.

Pics???

riskytrader wrote in post #2367099
Oh and I'll be sure to post up pics of me and my hot 20-23 year old girlfriends from a birthday party at a club next weekend if that'll help. I'm letting the hubby bring along his camera so if you can also suggest a good club lens that's not too pricey feel free.

Um... so where are those pics of those hot 20-23 year old chicks?