Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 24 Aug 2008 (Sunday) 12:42
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Lens Advice Needed, Please...

 
kevinmcdade
Senior Member
603 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: McKinney, TX
     
Aug 24, 2008 12:42 |  #1

I currently have a Canon 17-40L, which is a fantastic lens. I find myself in situations when I could use f/2.8. I've been looking at possibly adding another lens to my bag to help with these situations.

Part of me wants to sell the 17-40 and get the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I've also been tossing around the idea of just purchasing a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and keeping the 17-40. The only drawback to that scenario is that I mostly shoot sports with a 40D/30D combination and I'm not sure if the AF of the Tamron can keep up with fast action. I'm also not totally impressed with Tamron's reverse zoom ring which is why I will be selling or trading my Tamron 28-75 to get a Sigma or Canon version.

I've recently been presented with an offer to trade my 17-40 for a Canon 16-35 f/2.8L MKI (produced in 2003) plus $300. I'm really leaning toward this deal!

Any input and/or ideas would be greatly appreciated. I'll have to make a decision pretty quick if I want the 16-35.

Thanks in advance.


-KMc-
Canon 7D | Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS | Sigma 10-20 | Canon 70-200L f/4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,293 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 514
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Aug 24, 2008 12:44 |  #2

kevinmcdade wrote in post #6168422 (external link)
I currently have a Canon 17-40L, which is a fantastic lens. I find myself in situations when I could use f/2.8. I've been looking at possibly adding another lens to my bag to help with these situations.

Part of me wants to sell the 17-40 and get the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I've also been tossing around the idea of just purchasing a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and keeping the 17-40. The only drawback to that scenario is that I mostly shoot sports with a 40D/30D combination and I'm not sure if the AF of the Tamron can keep up with fast action. I'm also not totally impressed with Tamron's reverse zoom ring which is why I will be selling or trading my Tamron 28-75 to get a Sigma or Canon version.

I've recently been presented with an offer to trade my 17-40 for a Canon 16-35 f/2.8L MKI (produced in 2003) plus $300. I'm really leaning toward this deal!

Any input and/or ideas would be greatly appreciated. I'll have to make a decision pretty quick if I want the 16-35.

Thanks in advance.

while the 17-55 IS is probably the best choice i would be tempted to jump on the 16-35. i use the 16-35L II sometimes on my 30d and i really like the results :D.

ed rader


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lungdoc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,101 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Canada
     
Aug 24, 2008 12:53 |  #3

Not sure I'd be tempted to go 16-35 on a crop camera while owning a 12-24 as well - seems like a lot of overlap. I'd go 17-55 IS in your shoes mainly for the range and IS/


Mark
My Smugmug (external link) Eos 7D, Canon G1X II, Canon 15-85 IS, Canon 17-85 IS, Sigma 100-300 EX IF HSM, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 85mm 1.8, Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro, Sigma 50-150 2.8, Sigma 1.4 EX DG , Sigma 24-70 F2.8 DG Macro, Canon EF-S 10-22, Canon 430EX,

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kevinmcdade
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
603 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: McKinney, TX
     
Aug 24, 2008 13:06 |  #4

lungdoc wrote in post #6168476 (external link)
Not sure I'd be tempted to go 16-35 on a crop camera while owning a 12-24 as well - seems like a lot of overlap. I'd go 17-55 IS in your shoes mainly for the range and IS/

I totally forgot about my 12-24! That shows how little I use it; I didn't even think of it in this equation. That's another one that will be traded or sold. It's a great lens but I just don't use it much.

With the 12-24 removed, would you still suggest the 17-55?

The thing that scares me most about the 17-55 is that I'd have to buy it without testing one first. NO camera store in my area keeps them in stock.


-KMc-
Canon 7D | Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS | Sigma 10-20 | Canon 70-200L f/4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lungdoc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,101 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Canada
     
Aug 24, 2008 13:13 |  #5

And they keep a 16-35! If you buy from a good retailer they'll readily take a return. I'd also consider used, then if you sell in a couple years you won't lose much. A bit more "leap of faith" required. 17-55 going for about 850 used these days.
If you don't use 12-24 much it suggests that you don't do that much at the wide end. I'd suggest reviewing the Exif on your 17-40 shots and see what FL you use; if it's a lot between 35-40 then you'd probably like 17-55 more than 16-35.


Mark
My Smugmug (external link) Eos 7D, Canon G1X II, Canon 15-85 IS, Canon 17-85 IS, Sigma 100-300 EX IF HSM, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 85mm 1.8, Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro, Sigma 50-150 2.8, Sigma 1.4 EX DG , Sigma 24-70 F2.8 DG Macro, Canon EF-S 10-22, Canon 430EX,

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,293 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 514
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Aug 24, 2008 13:16 |  #6

kevinmcdade wrote in post #6168547 (external link)
I totally forgot about my 12-24! That shows how little I use it; I didn't even think of it in this equation. That's another one that will be traded or sold. It's a great lens but I just don't use it much.

With the 12-24 removed, would you still suggest the 17-55?

The thing that scares me most about the 17-55 is that I'd have to buy it without testing one first. NO camera store in my area keeps them in stock.

the 16-35 of course will be wider. i'm not really an UWA fan either but 17mm is not quite wide enough on 1.6 crop.

ed rader


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kevinmcdade
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
603 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: McKinney, TX
     
Aug 24, 2008 13:45 as a reply to  @ ed rader's post |  #7

I've been going over my EXIF's for the last few hours. When I shoot a sporting event (mostly bicycle races), I usually have my 70-200 on one body and my 17-40 on the other. Most of my shots with the 17-40 are in the 17-30mm range. This is also one reason why I decided to not spend the money on a 24-70L because I rarely use that range. I'm either at 17-30 or 70-180. Every now and then when I'm walking around I look for more reach than what my 17-40 offers. That's when I switch to my 28-75.

This is a VERY difficult decision.

lungdoc -- I was very suprised when I asked to see a 17-55 and they didn't have one but had the 16-35L. They stock either low end lenses or high end lenses; nothing in the middle, if you want to consider the 17-55 "in the middle".

I appreciate the feedback even though I still have no idea which one I'll get.


-KMc-
Canon 7D | Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS | Sigma 10-20 | Canon 70-200L f/4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kevinmcdade
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
603 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: McKinney, TX
     
Aug 24, 2008 15:09 as a reply to  @ kevinmcdade's post |  #8

I found a store about an hour away from me that actually has the 17-55 in stock! I'm going to go check it out in person.


-KMc-
Canon 7D | Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS | Sigma 10-20 | Canon 70-200L f/4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lungdoc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,101 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Canada
     
Aug 24, 2008 15:12 |  #9

I can understand the need to hold something before buying; but I haven't personally subscribed to it for lenses and have bought used, sight unseen with no issues and fairly good savings. To each their own, not sure you'll learn much about the lens you wouldn't get from reviews and this forum.


Mark
My Smugmug (external link) Eos 7D, Canon G1X II, Canon 15-85 IS, Canon 17-85 IS, Sigma 100-300 EX IF HSM, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 85mm 1.8, Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro, Sigma 50-150 2.8, Sigma 1.4 EX DG , Sigma 24-70 F2.8 DG Macro, Canon EF-S 10-22, Canon 430EX,

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kevinmcdade
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
603 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: McKinney, TX
     
Aug 24, 2008 15:29 |  #10

lungdoc wrote in post #6169203 (external link)
I can understand the need to hold something before buying; but I haven't personally subscribed to it for lenses and have bought used, sight unseen with no issues and fairly good savings. To each their own, not sure you'll learn much about the lens you wouldn't get from reviews and this forum.

I'm just a bit weird about expensive items. I bought my 70-200 used and saved quite a bit but I also bought it local. There are hardly no bad reviews on that lens either but I just like the peace of mind in seeing it first when I'm spending in the $1k range. The 16-35 that I am considering is local as well.


-KMc-
Canon 7D | Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS | Sigma 10-20 | Canon 70-200L f/4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kevinmcdade
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
603 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: McKinney, TX
     
Aug 26, 2008 07:47 as a reply to  @ kevinmcdade's post |  #11

The photography store that I visited has all of the 16/17/18-50/55 lenses in stock. I was able to spend some time with each. I'm, now, more confused than ever. I didn't buy any of them. I ended up with a Canon 28 f/1.8 though. It's been on my list of lenses to get. I'm still debating on which mid range zoom to get. The 17-55 is now my number one pick. I passed on the trade for the 16-35. I was also pretty impressed with the Tokina 16-50. I still can't get over the reverse zoom ring of the Tamron so that one is out. I'm glad I got to see and use all of the lenses in this range.


-KMc-
Canon 7D | Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS | Sigma 10-20 | Canon 70-200L f/4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,251 posts
Likes: 84
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Aug 26, 2008 15:04 |  #12

Hi,

So long as you don't have any immediate full frame needs, and f2.8 is fast enogh, I'd go with the 17-55 IS.

I don't have it personally. I have an older 17-35/2.8 and faster primes (28/1.8 and 50/1.4 that fall in the 17-55's range).

But, all I hear about the 17-55 seem to consider it equal to the 24-70/2.8, which I do have and use, but scaled down for use on crop sensor cameras and with IS added. Seems like close to a dream "walk around" lens, if you choose a zoom for that purpose.

At some point, you might look at the Tokina 11-16/2.8, too, or maybe in place of the 12-24/4. Just a thought, ultra wide is fun to use for some sports shooting... when you can get close enough. F2.8 is "marginal" for sports, the slowest lens I'd want to use.

On the other hand, higher ISO cameras are on the way, which might compensate well for smaller max aperture lenses in many respects. Now, I just wish the manufacturers would expand the ISO range in the other direction, say to 25 or perhaps even 12 or lower. That would be really cool.


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kevinmcdade
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
603 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: McKinney, TX
     
Aug 26, 2008 15:22 |  #13

amfoto1 wrote in post #6183694 (external link)
Hi,

So long as you don't have any immediate full frame needs, and f2.8 is fast enogh, I'd go with the 17-55 IS.

I don't have it personally. I have an older 17-35/2.8 and faster primes (28/1.8 and 50/1.4 that fall in the 17-55's range).

But, all I hear about the 17-55 seem to consider it equal to the 24-70/2.8, which I do have and use, but scaled down for use on crop sensor cameras and with IS added. Seems like close to a dream "walk around" lens, if you choose a zoom for that purpose.

At some point, you might look at the Tokina 11-16/2.8, too, or maybe in place of the 12-24/4. Just a thought, ultra wide is fun to use for some sports shooting... when you can get close enough. F2.8 is "marginal" for sports, the slowest lens I'd want to use.

On the other hand, higher ISO cameras are on the way, which might compensate well for smaller max aperture lenses in many respects. Now, I just wish the manufacturers would expand the ISO range in the other direction, say to 25 or perhaps even 12 or lower. That would be really cool.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm trying to secure a 17-55 right now. I'd like new but won't turn down a good deal on a used one. I just need to move some of my unused/unwanted items first. I don't think I'll be going FF anytime soon.

After I get the 17-55 squared away, I will be getting a Tokina 11-16 next. I love to mix in some ultra wide angle shots when I am at a sporting event and can get close enough to the action. I'm also trying to mix in some faster primes into my inventory for the times when 2.8 won't do.


-KMc-
Canon 7D | Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS | Sigma 10-20 | Canon 70-200L f/4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,337 views & 0 likes for this thread
Lens Advice Needed, Please...
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Igorsky
750 guests, 268 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.