Why I chose not to go with the new 17-55 2.8 IS

[lucas_jarvis]

I'm an owner of the 24-70 and the 20D. I started getting the crazy

idea of selling my 24-70 for the new 17-55 2.8 IS lens. I thought I

would like a lighter lens for doing weddings. Also, 2.8 with IS... I

mean, come on!

 

I've had a change of heart and I'm going a completly different

route. The 17mm of the 17-55 on the 20D still isn't as wide as I

would like, and pairing it up with a 70-200 leaves a gap. So here is

what I have decided to do . . .

 

Sell the 24-70 for the 24-105 IS and pair it up with the 10-22. This

gives me a full frame equivalent of 16mm - 186mm with only two

lenses, and most of that range is covered by image stabalizing.

 

It's a good thing Canon gives you time before they release their

lenses so you have time to think about these things, or else I'd

have bought it on impulse.

 

I just thought I'd share my plan of attack incase anyone else is

caught in a similar predicament.

 

Why does photography equipment always have to be a battle of

compromises?

[shambrick007]

"Why does photography equipment always have to be a battle of compromises?"<p> You mean like life in general? ;-)

[m_barbu1]

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Answer_to_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything">42</a>. ;-)

[brian_donaldson1]

"M Barbu, apr 28, 2006; 11:49 a.m.

42. ;-)"

 

ROFLMAO

[robin_sibson1]

Back on topic, with all due acknowledgments to the late great DA!

 

Lucas, I have exactly the combination you are thinking of (10~22 plus 24~105 on the 20D), and find that it works very well indeed. But I am not a wedding photographer. The changeover point at 22/24mm is not ideal for all applications, and I can well imagine that the range covered seamlessly by the 17~55 together with its extra stop of speed might well be attractive to plenty of users, and weddings look like an obvious application - for which you surely won't need the wide end of the 10~22. If you decide to change over, start by buying the 10~22; you might find that you were then happy keeping the 24~70. But I sympathise with your point about weight. I find that the 24~105 is about the limit of what I would want in terms of weight for a walkaround lens - very similar to the 135/2, which I am also happy using. My 100~400, however, only goes for an outing when I know I am going to need it.

[kevin conville]

Glad you have this all worked out Lucas. I think you might be too intent on filling in

(mathematically) all the little millimeters.

 

The beauty of a lens like the 17-55 is that you go from moderate wide angle (27mm eq) to

moderate tele (88mm eq) in one lens. I think you'll be changing lenses a lot.

[lovcom_photo]

Better to keep the 24-70L for the F2.8....going to F4 for weddings seems going backwards. If you're serious about wedding work in the future, then your sites should be on a future full-frame body, which means keep away from EF-S regardless of how good they may be.

 

I would get into a "delayed gratification" mode and plan on getting/keeping the following kit:

 

Canon 16-35 F2.8L

Canon 24-70 F2.8L

Canon 70-200 F2.8L

 

Pepper the focal range 16-200 with primes as required.

 

I would have the following bias:

 

1. Purchase the fastest lenses for a given FL.

 

2. Plan all purchases on Full-Frame future.

 

Just another angle you might want to consider.

[eos 10 fan]

I have a 17-35/2.8L and I have been playing with the idea of selling it and getting a 17-55/IS when I get a digi box. My hesitation comes from my still wanting to keep a 10s for slides.

 

[Plaintive wail]Oh why didn't Canon make the 17-55/IS in EF mount![/Plaintive wail]

 

--

[jon_austin]

Lots of good advice already provided here, so just a couple of comments.

 

It was probably just a typo, but the equivalent focal length covered by the 24-105 ends at 168mm, not 186. While shorter than you stated, the difference is not nearly as signficant on the long end as it would be on the wide end.

 

I agree with the feedback that you'll be going backwards from your current f/2.8 to the f/4 of the 24-105. I bought a 24-105 last year, but I don't do weddings professionally, and all my zooms are f/4Ls. I also agree with the comment that you might find the changeover point problematic.

 

If I were you, I'd follow Dan Lovell's advice: buy a 16-35 now and save up for a FF dSLR.

 

Dan Funk: "[Plaintive wail]Oh why didn't Canon make the 17-55/IS in EF mount![/Plaintive wail]" Dan, that's how I feel about the EF-S 60mm macro!

[daniel_taylor]

"I've had a change of heart and I'm going a completly different route. The 17mm of the 17-55 on the 20D still isn't as wide as I would like, and pairing it up with a 70-200 leaves a gap."

 

I'm not going to tell you your lens choices are right or wrong, but...why do so many photographers feel they have to cover every single mm from 16 to 600 with overlapping zooms?

 

Your "gap" in 35mm terms is 88mm to 112mm. In other words, it's a step or two on your part. What do you think people did before zooms, when they might have a 85 or 100 and a 135 or 200? Do you really believe that you will lose a shot because it would have been "just perfect" at 93.5mm but sucked at 88 and 112?

 

I think for weddings the 27-88 (equiv) zoom with f/2.8 and IS would be much more useful, and less swaped, than the slower, no-IS, 16-35 (equiv) zoom.

[oceanphysics]

I don't know Daniel -- he's boldly leaving the 23mm focal length uncovered between the 10-22 and the 24-105.

[phil vaughan - yorkshire u]

I've been using the 17-40 for weddings, and the 40mm f4 sucks for portraits (necessitating a change of lens. I've replaced it with the 18-50 2.8 Sigma, because I couldn't wait for / afford the new Canon.

 

However I've been using this lens (and the 10-20), and I've also been analysing the EXIF data from my last weddings. I rarely used the wide end of the 17-40, indeed most of the pics I shot with it are between 30 and 40 (remember longer than 40 and I was swapping lenses). Therefore I've decided to swap the 18-50 for a 24-70. Now if the Canon lens had IS, that would be great (would maybe make it worth the 3 times the price of the Sigma), as it is - the Canon 24-70L is almost perfect (too much money - no IS).

 

However how much use is IS REALLY at these focal lengths. Canon claim 3 stops with the new 17-55, but even at the long end that means a shutter speed of 1/4s, really how many shots of people do we take at 1/4s where camera movement is more an issue than subject movement?

 

1/30s is about as low as a practiced photographer can handhold a standard(ish) lens, and it's about the longest amount of time we can expect a shutter to be open whilst photographing a living being. So, whilst the 17-55IS loks good on paper, the 24-70 is still a better all round lens on digital, as long as you have a wider lens on standby; either a 20 (1.8- Sigma or 2.8- Canon) or the slower zoom and a tripod.

[charles_lipton]

I agree with Dan. For a wedding photographer who shoots alot indoors, you want as fast a lens as possible; f2.8 or faster. It's nice to shoot events available light, and people get tired of having flashes going off every few seconds in their face (if you intend on flash).

 

The other aspect of the faster than f4 lenses is bokeh. The f4s just don't seem to give the eye pleasing bokeh that their faster counterparts do. Pleasing bokeh to me is always a plus in any portraiture setting.

 

Just another opinion.

Charles

[lucas_jarvis]

Well, the idea was to have a two body system without lens changing. This is what I'm looking for but never mentioned it. Sorry. My other option would have been the 17-55 and a 70-200. I think this option is a lot heavier and bulkier to lug around at one time. I'm hoping the 105mm is long enough for telephoto like effects on a cropped sensor camera while shooting a wedding. This would eliminate having to switch to a very big and heavy lens during the day. If not, I always have my 135L to switch with the 10-22 on my second body when outdoors.

 

Also, with the 24-105 as opposed to the 17-55, I'm ready for FF in the future. For me to sell the 24-70 it wouldn't cover the costs to buy the 17-55, meaning i would have to shell out more money for a lens that isn't even L build quality. BTW I was just at Photo Imaging World here in Sydney and I've had a chance to use the 17-55. Jealous? LOL.

 

Wether or not I will miss the 2.8 will remain to be seen. I will hold on to my 24-70 in the meantime untill I'm sure I've made the right choice. I just think having a FF equivalent of 168mm with IS on my main lens that I use most of a wedding is a valuable feature to have. For those odd times when I find my 24 not wide enough on my cropped camera, I'll use the 10-22.