the 17-55 2.8IS OR 17-50 2.8 & 10-22?

Hi Guys!

OK, Im nearing the finish line, deciding which new lenses I am going to upgrade to......Wim and Ed have sold me on the 70-200 f/4IS, now, Im deciding which wide lens to buy for my everyday walk around use.

I shoot mainly piccys of my 4 boys.....indoors a lot of the time. The 70-200 will be for their school events, I think I need the IS (I am so shaky), so I decided to go with the f/4 IS rather then the 2.8 non-IS, I will just use my 430EX and crank up the ISO. I think the 2.8IS would be too heavy for me, Im only 5 foot tall on my good days, plus its pricey!

I will probably never go to FF....i really like my XTi, maybe one day I will upgrade to a 30D or 40D once its out, somewhere down the road.....but I really am the consumer the XTi was made for. So....walk around.....I have to ask what you guys would suggest. The 17-55 2.8 IS? Just go for the best right off the bat? I need the low light, and the IS would really come in handy for me....this lens will also be a long time keeper, I would get good use out of it. Or, go with the 17-50 2.8......since it has a much lower price tag, I can squeeze in the 10-22, which would be a fun lens to have. My husband has a muscle car he takes to the drag strip, and we spend many of our spring/sumer/fall weekends at classic car shows. I have been looking at some of the fun piccys that lens takes, especially of cars, and it would definitely be fun to have! I live in Michigan, and visit the Upper Pennisula often, it would take some great landscape shots as well, maybe bexpand my horizons and take pictures other then my boys all the time! Oh, and does this lens need a polorizer? or can I get by without one.....those are pretty $$$ for this lens *faint*

So....what would you guys suggest? Any thoughts, opinions or help would be greatly appretiated!

Thanks!

I've been considering this very question, though I must admit, I think the 17-55 is a bit too pricey to justify! Check out the reviews on the Tamron 17-50, particularly the one at www.photozone.de . We have a 350D (XTi) and a 30D, and I want another walkaround lens to compliment out 24-105L, something with a bit more wide angle, and I can't stand our kit lens that came with the 30D. Based on my (exhaustive?) research, I'm saving for the 17-50 Tammy, based on the image quality and the price, and because I don't really need IS in those focal lengths. I just reckon that Canon is overpriced, and I do love Canon. For less money, in Australia at least, you can get the 17-40L, which is another option for you.

check out the image comparisons on www.the-digital-picture.com as well- very interesting!

I'd take the 2 decent lenses over 1!

In fact those 2 are on my lenses to buy next list

thanks Bob and Pete! Im going to go check out that picture gallery now!

Yeah, I was thinking of the 17-40L too!!! thats in consideration too guys, and in my price range as well, so if anyone thinks the 17-40L and the 10-22 is a better way to go, let me know!

yeah, the 17-55 2.8 IS has a KILLER price tag, but if anyone thought it was well worth it, and the best option to get, I would get it, and get the 10-22 at a later date. For this kind of money, I just do not want to screw up! LOL

Im glad Im not alone in this tough decision. Bob....is there a reason your going for the Tammy instead of the 17-40L? just curious........

I'm still not 100% decided. I really like L stuff, being the proud owner of a 24-105L and a 100-400L, and my instinct is to go for the 17-40L, BUT, I like the f/2.8, as none of my lenses other than the 50 f/1.8 is a "fast" lens, and I'd like to have that option. Also, I've seen some mixed reviews of the 17-40L- see the other thread I just started a bit ago. And most of all, I really like the price tag on the Tamron, which is $500 less.

However, my lens line-up is a bit different than yours, as I have a lens that covers from 24-105, and from your signature you don't seem to. I'd be tempted to go for the longer reach of the Tamron (or Canon IS). I'm mainly after a lens that will give me the best quality wide angle shots from 17-24mm, and am not so fussed about anything over 24mm. So 17-40 would work ok for me, but I'd think not as well for you.

Also, if you're going to be taking speedway pics, you'll want the faster lens, right? The 17-40 is F/4, not F2.8

Geez- photography is worse than being a kid in a candy shop! LOL

Cheers

I've got the 17-40 f/4L and the 17-55 f/2.8. The 17-55 is a great lens: really sharp, useful for wide angle and portrait, great IS, amazing image quality (sharper than the 17-40). The lens is a bit big, lots of glass, and it's not as well built as L lenses. It suffers a bit from flaring, but I have not had problems with it. It's my main walk around lens on the 30D.

The 17-40 is lighter, well built, slightly richer colors out of the camera, and cheaper.

I've had the Tamron 28-75 which was excellent quality, I'm sure the 17-50 is good too, but the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is probably only second in zoom sharpness to the 70-200 f/4 IS. It's a very versatile lens.

For very wide angle I went for the Sigma 10-20 which has been a good performer. I got the very light and fantastic 135 f/2L for indoor performances rather than getting the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

Oh, and I'm not allowed to buy any more lenses till 2010...

Malcolm

you got that right!!!!! Man.....I thought picking a camera was tough! *wipes sweat from forehead*

Well, right now, Im using the 50 1.4 lot, its of course, the only sweet lens I own, but find it WAY TO LONG for me more times then not. The only time I go for my cheapie 75-300 is for school events.....I LOVE my kit lens range, I would love to use it more often, but many of the piccys I take are in the house of the kids, and the kit lens just stinks for that. The 50 1.4 in my small ranch home is tough to work sometimes. Thats why Im leaning to a wider lens......I just notice that I need something in my kit lens range. If I need longer then 50mm, then I will just reach for my 70-200 f4 IS I would get the 24-105L, but I know it will still be too wide for me

oh man, thanks Malcolm, now Im REALLY confused as to what to get! hahahhaaha maybe the 17-55 IS?

GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

oh what to do, what to do???????? why must this be so hard! they need a pulling your hair out emoticon! LOL

As you can see, I have the 17/55. Yes the price is a killer, but so is the lens.

Let's compare my 17/55 to my 24/105L:

Price - at my dealer's they were the same.

Focusing speed and accuracy - slight edge to the 24/105

Smoothness of the rings - slight edge to the 24/105L, but when they're on the camera and I'm shooting they are hard to tell apart - except that the zoom and focus rings are reversed which is a pain, particularly when they feel so similar.

Speed - a no brainer with the 17/55 at f/2.8

IS - a tie as they both have it.

Weight - 17/55 not quite as heavy, but both are heavy - my wrists are stronger now.

Focal lengths for people indoors - 17/55 hands down. I used this lens exclusively for my grand-daughter's 4th birthday party with 12 little girls. It was definitely the right lens for this job.

Image quality - 17/55 every bit as good as the 24/105L, maybe even sharper.

Colour - can't tell them apart on my LCD - have to look at the EXIF.

The net and overall difference? Depends on the focal lengths required for the job, but for indoors, the 17/55 shines.

If you get the 17/55 you will never be disappointed. Hope this helps.

thanks Glenn!!!!!

anyone else want to give their input? its greatly appreciated!

17-55 You won't regret it!

I'd definately go for the Tam and the 10-22. I have tested all of them, and all are phenomenal lenses. The 17-55 is a lowlight beast, especially if your subject isnt moving, and the USM and IS are nice (as is the full time manual focus). However, the tamron is really pretty much as sharp and is just as good in low light for anything moving, and the 10-22 is a rediculous lens, has a great and well deserved reputation. If i was you i would go for the pair, which will give you more flexibility and two really great lenses. The 17-55 is great, but the tam and the 10-22 would serve you in more situations.

I'd go with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS too. IQ is fantastic. I found less distortion too on mine compared to my 17-40 at the wide end and have regularly found the combination of f/2.8 and IS a boon for indoor work, aloowing me to make do with natural light or less power on the flashgun.

Combined with a 100 f/2.8 macro it's meant my 3 primes are now gathering dust and are about to be sold to help pay for a 70-200 f/2.8 IS. 10-22 may go the same way as to date I'm finding 17mm plenty wide enough for my shooting needs. (I got the UWA when I was still using a 24-70 lens) That would leave me with just 3 lenses Not bad for a former gear fetishist!

If you want the 17-55, get the 17-55. It is the best general purpose lens for an EF-S capable camera.

If you want the 10-22, get the 10-22. If you don't have enough money now to get both, get the 17-55 now and save for a little while longer to get the 10-22.

I have never found it to be an advantage in the long term to buy a cheaper lens now and then buy the lens I really wanted later.

I would not consider the 17-40. I own both the 17-40 and 17-55 and the 17-40 sits at home all of the time unless I find a need to use my film camera.