Advice on lens needed

Hey everyone!

Already a member for a couple of months, but this is my first post here.

I'm ready to step up from my Powershot G9 to a DSLR (preferrably a T2i/550D), and would like some piece of advice as to which glass I should opt for.
Please note that money is an issue, which means that I can only get one or two lenses (max.) for the time being. IQ and sharpness are the main criteria.

On one hand, I very much enjoy watch photography (despite the certain 'limitations' of my otherwise very decent G9).
So should I opt for a dedicated macro lens, such as the 100mm F/2.8, or would I be better off with a 50mm F/1.4 (BTW what a magnificent bokeh this lens offers!) probably coupled with a 25mm extension tube?

On the other hand, I'll be needing an all-around lens, with a strong preference for shooting candids!!
I would think that a 17-55 mm F/2.8 would be a good nice, only I've read somewhere in this forum that one of the gripes is colour. Is it that big an issue?
Any other suggestions?


Thank you in advance

PS: English is not my mother tongue so please excuse any misuse of terminology/language.

Your English is excellent, indeed exemplary.

The 17-55/2.8 is by far the best general use zoom available for an APS-C body, and such issues as it does have are quite minor in context.

Would your budget stretch to this lens, and the EF 50/2.5 Compact Macro?

You can also consider the 60mm Macro. Heard good things from people who have it.

xarqi wrote in post #10569340
Your English is excellent, indeed exemplary.

The 17-55/2.8 is by far the best general use zoom available for an APS-C body, and such issues as it does have are quite minor in context.

Would your budget stretch to this lens, and the EF 50/2.5 Compact Macro?

Thank you for your comments and the nice words (God knows how long it took me to finish the above post. )

preveen wrote in post #10569391
You can also consider the 60mm Macro. Heard good things from people who have it.

Thanks preveen. I feel however that, IQ-wise, the overall gain is higher with the 100mm.

What I still need to decide is whether I should go for a dedicated macro or a 50mm F/1.4+ET?
Any thoughts people?

Welcome to POTN!

I would think that the 17-55 will serve you well for most things. For macro stuffs you'll be using a tripod and use manual focusing (mostly unless you have the 100L )

May I suggest at looking in to old MF lenses with tubes. They are reasonable cheap and very gettable at low prices. For fun I use my Takumars frequently with tubes to good effect. Some on eBay come even with bellows.

preveen wrote in post #10569391
You can also consider the 60mm Macro. Heard good things from people who have it.

Very good things. And I'm not just saying that because I have one for sale either.

Just take a peek in the Lens photo archive.

I actually think a G9 would be better for watch photography as it has close focusing abilities and deep DOF. Invest in some lighting and you are set.

xarqi wrote in post #10569340
Your English is excellent, indeed exemplary.

The 17-55/2.8 is by far the best general use zoom available for an APS-C body, and such issues as it does have are quite minor in context.

Would your budget stretch to this lens, and the EF 50/2.5 Compact Macro?

This is obviously a very subjective statement. There are lots of people who prefer the 24-70, 24-105, 15-85, 17-40... and then there's the third party alternatives.

I don't know how much magnification you'll need to go into watch photography, but can imagine that in some cases a non-macro lens would suffice. In that case you can just use a 24-105 at 105mm for example. The 50mm f/2.5 CM is supposed to be an underappreciated piece of glass and comes at a very attractive price.

Agreed there are numerous permutations out there. I have used the 17-40 and EF 12 with some success for a 1:2 "macro" work. All you need then is good lighting and you are set. The built of the 17-40 is lovely, it's light and great outdoor lens on a crop.

O-Ren wrote in post #10570633
Thank you for your comments and the nice words (God knows how long it took me to finish the above post. )

If only the native speakers took a fraction of the time!

Rsyx wrote in post #10570938
This is obviously a very subjective statement. There are lots of people who prefer the 24-70, 24-105, 15-85, 17-40... and then there's the third party alternatives.

Subjective, yes, like all opinions, but readily defensible.
The 17-55 IS is, compared to:
- the 24-70, a more versatile focal length range for APS-C, and offers IS;
- the 24-105, a more versatile focal length range for APS-C, and twice as fast;
- the 15-85, is faster and has invariant maximum aperture;
- the 17-40, is twice as fast, longer, and has IS;
- third party lenses, is made by Canon.

xarqi wrote in post #10572184
Subjective, yes, like all opinions, but readily defensible.
The 17-55 IS is, compared to:
- the 24-70, a more versatile focal length range for APS-C, and offers IS;
- the 24-105, a more versatile focal length range for APS-C, and twice as fast;
- the 15-85, is faster and has invariant maximum aperture;
- the 17-40, is twice as fast, longer, and has IS;
- third party lenses, is made by Canon.

- 24-70: The range of the 17-55 is different, not necessarily 'more versatile', again subjective. The brick has better contrast and rendering IMO.
- 24-105: The 105 is much longer, so some people will find this more versatile too. Better contrast and rendering IMO.
- 15-85: Both wider and longer than the 17-55.
- 17-40: Better contrast IMO.
- Third party lenses, often a lot less expensive.

Again, the things above are highly subjective (e.g. 'more versatile'). A lot of people will probably agree with you, but I for one find the images of the 17-55 rather flat, they miss the pop/3D to me.

I should also mention that the build quality of all L's is better than the 17-55s build. This doesn't matter much to me, but it might matter to the OP.