Trading lenses for 17-55 2.8......?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by rdavis, Nov 30, 2010.

  1. Am I nuts for thinking this? I shoot with a 40D and have Tamron 28-75 2.8, Tokina 12-24 f/4, Canon 70-200 f/4 IS. I would like to downsize my bag and have a good lens set by selling Tamron & Tokina and replacing with Canon 17-55-2.8 IS. About 2/3's of my shooting is within the 17-55 range & I don't use the 12-24 much. For around $250 I could downsize and have a 2 lens set. I usually shoot family, street, landscape, and anything eye catching. Is anyone shooting with a 2 lens set? Or am I nuts for spending $250 to own fewer lenses? Thanks
     
  2. I guess that if one third of your photography is below 17mm, you are going to miss that sooner or later with your new kit. If you have to go wide, well, you need a super-wide zoom and you will end up with one of them Tokina lenses again (12-24mm or 11-16mm).
    The Tamron has indeed not such a useful range on APS-C, so replacing that might be a good start anyway. And I would leave the great white at home from time to time...
     
  3. Nope, not nuts. You will love the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS. Go for it.
     
  4. I highly recommend the efs 17 55 2.8 IS, It is a superb lens, Sharp and fast. I only got the lens recently, Makes me wonder why I had not bought it earlier.
    Go for it !
     
  5. double post, sorry
     
  6. I have been using a 2-lens set for years and do not see a reason to add to it - I have the 30D with a (newly acquired) 70-200 f4L IS and 17-55 2.8 IS. I bought the 70-200 as an upgrade for the 70-300 but do not intend to ditch that - and when I use it, I would only carry one of them.
    I do not shoot big landscapes so do not have the 10-22 (or similar) on my list. But some days I go out with the 70-200 for long work plus my S90 compact for wide angle - they both fit into my holster camera bag.
    Do you shoot that 30% of pictures below 17mm because you are interested in it, or because you can? The answer will give a guide as to whether you would miss that range.
    An alternative is to keep the 12-24 and buy instead the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC. Picture quality is said to be very close to that of the Canon 17-55. I think you could do this without increasing your budget.
     
  7. This is exactly the reason I made the jump to full frame. 24-XX is such a great range but I made the mistake of using a 24-105 on my 40D. If I was sticking to ASP-C I would go with 15-85 or 17-55 or even the Tamron 17-50 which is a nice little lens. If your happy with the Tamron 28-75 you may want to keep your UW and switch to this. I had an issue with the build of the 17-55 considering the price and thats why I opted for the 24-105.
     
  8. The 17-55 is a great lens, some even say that its as good as L lenses. But before, you should consider if you intend to go full frame in the near future, as it will not work on a full frame DSLR.
    Simon.
     
  9. You may also concider the tokina 16-50. It gives you L series build quality as a substitute for IS. Thats was my reason for buying it.
     
  10. I still have my 17-55mm even though I sold my 40D and got a 5D mark II. It is a fantastic lens and I plan on getting a back up APS camera soon.
     
  11. This might sound crazy but I could not decide which one to buy for my 7D.
    I bought 17-55 and borrowed 24-105.. I am trying both of them since past two days..
    So far not been able to conclude..
    17-55 gives f/2.8 which has its own benefit w.r.t creativity with DOF
    24-105 is solid build quality.. no worry of dust and weather.. this is mainly important for me with the fact that I would be using lens + camera mainly in India which is much more dusty than US
     

Share This Page

1111