walkaround wide PJ lens for 30D

[drumbum]

Hi all,

I'm currently in a dilemma. I've ordered a new 30D, and am exploring

my options for lenses. I'm interested in a wide angle made by Canon,

and have sort-of narrowed the field to:

 

1) Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

2) Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

3) The not yet released Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

 

Price is a consideration, but I'm willing to pay more for quality.

Here are some of my arguments:

 

The 3rd option seems to be the best in terms of value, quality, and

range. My only concerns about it are that it won't scale well when the

1.6 chip size is nixxed in favor of full-frame. I don't see this

happening in the immediate future, but it would be something to think

about down the road. Am I really going to want an obsolete lens 5

years from now?

 

The 1st option also seems like a really good deal considering the high

aperture. Plus, it's an L series, and that red-ring is a moral booster

for me :)

 

The 2nd option would be a good to save money on, and it's still an L.

 

What do you guys think? Any opinions? Once again, this lens will be

used on an EOS 30D, shooting many photojournalistic assignments, as

well as a general purpose walkaround lens.

 

Thanks,

Vaughn

[vorlandphotography]

I've loved my 17-40 on the 20D, and am glad I have it now that I'm moving on to the 5D. I use it mostly outdoors, so I haven't missed the extra f stop.

[pto189]

It depends on your personal preference and need.<br>

1. Canon 16-32 if you need f/2.8 and plan to move to full frame in the near future.<br>

2. Canon 17-40 if you don't need f/2.8 but plan to buy a full frame DSLR soon.<br>

3. Canon 17-55 if you intend to keep your 30D for 3-5 years.

[awindsor]

There are also the two 3rd party fast crop factor lenses:

 

1) Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Aspherical IF

 

2) Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF)

 

The first seems very good except at the widest setting.

 

I have the 17-40/4L. It is pretty good. Only you know whether you need f2.8 given the high ISO performance of the 30D.

[aaron_lam]

If price is really not an issue... the 17-55mm is your best option (assuming it's quality is close to that of a 16-35/17-40). Not only because it has the larger aperture... but much better range AND IS. Problem is that it is unproven.

 

I guess also if you are not planning on going to full frame in the next year or so. When I do street scenes, I much prefer to walk around with just a 50mm or 28mm... but that's just me.

 

Best regards,

 

 

aaron

[buck_rogers1]

Remember, the 17-55 is an EF-s lens and will make an expensive paperweight when you upgrade to a FF body.

[ifeito]

But...

 

There will be plenty of guys willing to buy that 17-55 2.8 IS if and when you buy a FF camera

[awindsor]

Lenses are a tool not an investment. The current wisdom is that the 1.6x crop factor sensor is here to stay for the consumer cameras. Thus there will be a resale market for the 17-55 IS if you do buy a full frame camera.

 

My opinion is that both the 17-40 and 16-35 are too short for ideal walk around lenses. I use my 17-40/4L for that role but find myself carrying my 70-200 and switching frequently. I know that you can take great photos with only a 35mm or 50mm (equivalent) prime. It is also possible to take great portraits using daguerroetype. I prefer a decent zoom and fast panchromatic B&W film or digital.

[affen_kot]

"shooting many photojournalistic assignments..."

 

just my opinion: i wouldn't go with a wide angle lens that has such a short reach like the 16-35 (or only F4 max ap like the 17-40). the 17-55 will be able to go from decently wide to short tele, whereas the other two are just decently wide to normal.

 

it would be more optimal to have a 16-35 and a 70-200 IS, but if you can have only one lens, and it's between the three you mentioned, the 17-55 IS is more versatile. F4 just doesn't cut the mustard in many low light situations, and the 16-35 hasn't too much reach. YMMV.

[friskybongo]

Vaughn,

 

Your decision should be based on how you intend to use the lens in the present. What can the lens do for you now? You say, "Am I really going to want an obsolete lens 5 years from now?" Believe me, your brand new 30D will be obsolete in 18 months or less.

[andrew_c2]

If you need the extra stop, go 2.8. If not, 17-40 should be fine. You should, however, consider what kind of photojournalistic assignments you do. Would the 24-70/2.8 not suffice?

 

I had the 17-40 and found it too wide for my tastes, but I like the 50mm FF length and didn't need most of that lens.

 

I have a tight budget, and I wouldn't consider the 17-55/2.8 if I was going to go FF in a few years, which I hope to do. You might not have this issue.

 

So, for me, it'd come down to the extra stop of the 16-35 or the 17-40. I'd go with the 17-40 and use a 50/1.8 for lowlight.

[marknagel]

My 24-70L is on my 20D 99% of the time.

 

Mark

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

No brainer. The 16-35 is the PJ lens if that's what you're looking for. You'll need the f2.8.

You'll use it alot. The 16mm is barely wide enough for 1.6x but it's wide enough. The other

two aren't wide enough (yes 1mm makes a difference). You'll have (equivalent) 25-55 lens.

Perfect. (Plus, yes, it's an L lens and it does have the red ring.:->))

[andy_van_eynde]

small question : what is a "PJ lens"?

[andy_van_eynde]

Do not know if this one is even an option :

 

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO

[andy_van_eynde]

okay...figured out what PJ stand for by reading the other awnsers a bit more in detail!