Hey everyone.
I'd like to get a new lens to compliment the ones I have already for my 650D
Tokina 11-16 2.8, Canon 50 1.8 and an old Kiron 28mm 2.0 manual focus lens. They all have their uses and I like them all. 28mm is my favourite focal length although the manual focus is becoming a bit of a pain.
So the things I like to shoot/find myself shooting a lot of are action sports where I tend to use a flash more often that not, indoor/low light people shots (candid or posed) that tend not to be flash. Its in the low light/indoor stuff that I find my 50mm is too long and the 11-16 too wide. I will also be shooting a few gigs soon so I can't use a flash in that situation at all! The other things to consider I suppose is that I'm going back to Canada and I will be shooting a fair amount of skiing in the winter, hence the 24-105 becoming useful with the extra range. As you can tell this lens I get will have to withstand a lot of the elements so needs to be rugged.
They wont be used for filming but the IS is helpful for obvious reasons. Now it's not that I don't want a whole arsenal of lenses to pick from but I rather not buy loads of them because I'd like to refrain from selling my organs to pay for the things, so this next lens has to cover a few bases.
This has brought me to the 17-55 2.8 and the 24-105 4.0. Both about £600 second hand, just can't bloody decide! Any opinions you have on these two would be greatly appreciated, any flaws etc. I'm really looking for consistency, fast accurate and reliable focusing. If you happen to have another lens to throw into the mix then please do share. Please feel free to post any pictures you've taken with said lenses.
If you don't plan on going full-frame anytime soon, then I'd recommend going with the 17-55 f/2.8. That full stop difference is a major selling point, and the wider angle from 17mm end will be useful. My first trip through lenses, I tended to go with the zooms that gave me the greatest range, primarily to conserve costs. Second time through, though, I went for lens quality and fast aperture. If you're shooting action, you want the fast aperture.
As always, though, here's my standard recommendation to rent both and try before you buy. It will ultimately come down to the lens that matches your specific style, so it's worth renting them both for a couple of days.
@kannafoot Wicked, thanks for your speedy response, I really do need to test them. I've only used a cheapo kit lens for a day or two so I don't remember what that zoom was like for me. Thanks for your advice and I'll be sure to try before I buy.
@davidwren
I just imported some pics from trips this fall: from an iPhone, P&S, and two Canon lenses including 17-55 2.8. "Holy Cats! why don't I have that 17-55 lens on there more often?" Really beautiful colors and nice proportions for general portraits. It just jumped out at me when comparing similar pictures from all those cameras.
david, it a very good lens, focuses quickly, quiet etc.. and images come out well... its just that in low light because of the F4, you may struggle to get a shutter speed fast enough to take an image without motion blur. Its basically the primary lens that I use when travelling
Also, if you like a shallow depth of field for lets say people, then the F4 wont give you as nice a DoF as the F2.8.
@toast Awesome man, thanks for all of that. A buddy of mine owns one I'll have to give it a try but it sounds pretty good, just that 2.8 of the 17-55 is slightly swaying me. And then when I can afford a telephoto I can get 70-200 and have a near perfect set i guess! @bonniebouman Thanks for your response! I've heard it does make things look really nice :) Is it quite heavy to lug around each day or not too bad? You experienced using it in bad weather conditions?
I have the 24-105L and use it as my standard lens on a 60D. The image quality is very good and I find that f/4 is adequate for most situations e.g. http://365project.org/glenmoor/365/2013-01-06. I prefer the longer reach given by the 105mm end but that's just me. Incidentally you can get a new one for less than £700 where it was unwanted in a 5d MkIII kit.
@bonniebouman Awesome, just bought the 17-55 and I'm damn happy with it, as I am planning on getting a 70-200 further down the line they'll compliment each other nicely :) thanks for your advice!
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
As always, though, here's my standard recommendation to rent both and try before you buy. It will ultimately come down to the lens that matches your specific style, so it's worth renting them both for a couple of days.
I just imported some pics from trips this fall: from an iPhone, P&S, and two Canon lenses including 17-55 2.8. "Holy Cats! why don't I have that 17-55 lens on there more often?" Really beautiful colors and nice proportions for general portraits. It just jumped out at me when comparing similar pictures from all those cameras.
Also, if you like a shallow depth of field for lets say people, then the F4 wont give you as nice a DoF as the F2.8.
@bonniebouman Thanks for your response! I've heard it does make things look really nice :) Is it quite heavy to lug around each day or not too bad? You experienced using it in bad weather conditions?
24-70L F2.8
70-200L F2.8
I do feel it after a few hours, but with a cross-body strap it's OK.
I have used it in rain, but not heavy rain.