Like to here opinions of lens choice please.

I was wondering if some here could give me a little advice on a lense choice.

 

I'm about the purchase a new lense with a mind to photograph in a documentary

style, mainly people in their personal enviroments also some street shooting.

I've narrowed my choice down to 2 lenses but have become stuck over a few issues

that i thought you guys could hep me with. The lenses are:

 

<a

href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">Canon

EF 17-40 f/4.0 L USM</a> and <a

href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-2.8-Lens-Review.aspx">

EF 24mm f/2.8</a><br></br>

<br></br>

My concern is how well the 17-40 will perfom indoors in low light conditions in

comparison to the 24mm. I was also leaning toward the 24mm as i feel i may help

me develop my photgraphy in that i will have to improvise more withouth the use

of a zoom facility (Could be wrong though) Also i know that i would be

sacraficing build qualty of the L lens.

 

Any thoughts are very much appreciated.<br></br>

<br></br>

Yours debating.<br></br>

<br></br>

Stephen.

I don't know anything about these lenses. I know I wouldn't choose either of them simply

because i do a lot of low light so i like f 2 r better and I'm not into anything THAT wide

(wait, scratch that, who knows what it is on an APS sensor). But id seriously consider

whether you'll be happy with f4, even with the quality of an L lense. The 24mm sounds

okay if its got to be one of the two, assuming it's bastardised up to around a 35 on your

camera than handholding should still be doable to 1/15 1/8 or 1/4 or whatever. Also,

shooting with a prime offers a lot more in the way of hipshooting and other improv, means

you know your lens damn well after a while.

That said, if you think f 4 is fine, and you dont dig hte night life, get the zoom.

I have to agree with Luke, I haven't seen the 28mm before but I assume it's pretty small, so the hipshooting he mentioned would be great with this lens. And it's also probably wide enough that if there's a lot of human traffic around, you could probably get closer to the subject and shoot rather than waiting for the traffic to clear etc.

You don't mention what camera (film vs digital, full frame vs 1.6x) so it's difficult to make a suggestion. But if you're wanting inside shots then you do need a wide lens, unless you plan on just shooting tight intimate portraits. But I would go with the f4 zoom for flexibility, because if you're shooting with a digital then you can always just raise the ISO to 1600.

Prime lenses are usually better optical performers than zooms, (even if the zoom is an L lens), but I have no experience of either of the lenses you mention.

55/1.2 SSC

Thanks all for the replies. The camera is a 400D so has a 1.6x crop factor. I have been drawn to the prime for all the reasons mentioned here so i think i'll shop around some more and go with a wide/fast prime.

 

Thanks again for the advice. Much appreciated.

Does Canon make a 24/1.4 or am I thinking of Nikon? That would be a cool lens.

Consider the Canon 16-35 L f2.8 for your needs. This is a lovely lens, sharp and bright.

Also check out Nevada Wier's web site. She's a National Geographic photographer whose

photography exemplifies what you look to achieve. This is one of the lenses she uses.

You may be bettter with a slower prime for "bang for your buck" as you lot say (or summit like that) from what I've read the extreme fast lenses are not the best wide but probably as good or better at mid aperture. Again no direct experience with the lenses you are asking about.

The Canon 16-35 L f2.8 would be perfect. A little out of my price range at the moment though. Def gonna go for a p[rime.