Finally got an L lens!

[kennyahn]

After one month into my new hobby, my equipment:

 

Rebel XT

EF 50mm f/1.8

 

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L

 

Speedlite 420EX

 

I had the EFS 17-85mm IS, but someone just bought it off me for $620.

I took my debit card out and bought the 70-200mm f/2.8L for $1,129.

I'm so happpy about my first "L" lens. I've heard good things about

and I'm looking forward to using it in the years to come, especially

of my 2 babies.

 

Where I could use some insight from this group is what to replace my

17-85 lens that I just sold. I think I appreciate the constant f/2.8,

so I'm thinking about buying the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and then look

for a good wide angle lens. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts

on this idea. Thanks in advance.

[peter_white2]

You might do what I did. Get the 24-70 f:2.8L and the 10-22 EF-S. Pretty much covers all the bases.

[mendel_leisk]

Canon 24-70 f2.8 is the only lens I have with my 20d, so far, very happy with it. Can double as a dumbell, too ;)

[tim_kong]

I used a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 on my 20D and I love it. AF is good but not as good as USM. Picture quality is very good and its light as compared to Canon 24-70mm f2.8. As for wide angle, the EF-S 10-22 is super if you don't mind the EF-S range. Other wise, I would recommend the EF17-40mm f4L which I have. Optical and built quality is super and can go on any EOS film or FF digital should you decide to upgrade later. Though others might say there is an overlap from 28-40mm, but I think its not a problem, as far as I'm concern. BTW, I'm a hobyyist too like you.

[fivetonsflax]

I love my Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. It projects a small image circle, like an EF-S lens, though

it's EF mount. That makes it small and light relative to comparable lenses designed for

film.

[kaur_virunurm]

Dumb move, big time. What did you dislike in the 17-85?

 

As for baby lens, I wanted to suggest 50/1.4, but as you already have the 50/1.8, then simply buy nothing and use it. 50mm (x1.6) is perfect lens for baby shots.

[kennyahn]

I felt that the 17-85 was a bit slow for indoor (no flash) shooting at places like restaurants and churches. I was hoping the fixed 2.8 would make a difference. That's why I went from buying the 70-200 f/4 to the 70-200 f/2.8.

 

So that's why I'm considering the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and Canon 10-22 instead of the 17-85 f/4-5.6.

 

I've heard that f/4 and f/2.8 will make a difference indoors. I could be wrong.

[kaur_virunurm]

> I felt that the 17-85 was a bit slow for indoor (no flash)

 

Well yes, if you felt limited by its speed, then changing to something faster may turn out to be a smart move. As for the 2.8 zoom part, then using it indoors will be a problem anyway. First, it's too long (depending on what you shoot of course, I don't end up taking pictures inside churches too often, you might), and then it's still too dark to take pictures handheld without IS.

 

The fact that you (not just you, but everybody) needs two lenses - a generic one and then a wide-angle one - to cover what used to be the playground of 24-xx lenses on film cameras is a nuisance and shame for lens makers. 24-70/2.8 "aps-c" counterpart would be 15-45/2.8 EF-S, and there just is no such lens. Canon's 17-40 is ok, but not so wide and not so fast; Sigma's 18-50/2.8 EX DC is ok (and that's probably what I would buy), but it may lack in the wide end, depending on your needs; and so on. There is no elegant solution for a generic wide-midrange lens on the market, and that's why I think that selling an actually quite decent and versatile 17-85 (especially when you have the f/1.8 prime for low-light) could have been a wrong decision.

[andrew_ito]

I've got the 10-22 EFs as well as the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the

50mm f1.4. They are all great lenses. I sold the 17-40L after comparing it to the 10-22

and finding very little difference in quality when examining shots of a brick wall. The

Tamron is great if you find a sharp copy. Mine equalled a 24-70L that I had and sold. The

combination of the 10-22 EFS, 28-75 f2.8 Tamron and the 70-200 f2.8L is a GREAT

choice. It's what I did.

[jim_larson1]

I don't think selling the lens was a mistake.

 

At $620, sounds like you got what (maybe more) than you paid for it. You could always buy another one.

 

I agree that the 17-85/IS is a really great focal length range for a dSLR. The main knock in my mind is the $200 price premium over the 28-135/IS.

 

In my mind "IS" vs "2.8" are two different things. "IS" will allow you to take images in low light, but the shutter speeds are so slow that your subjects will show blur due to THEIR motion. The 2.8 will result in DOF issues in the image.

 

I personally consider a 5.6IS and a 2.8 non-IS lens to be seperate and distinct applications, not substitutes. I have considered getting a 28-135/IS to supplement my 4L lens and fast primes. . .but I basically passed based upon image quality.

[andrew_carlson]

I don't think it was a dumb decision either. I have the IS version and use it indoors and outdoors for portrait from head and 1/3 body. Yeah I backup a bit but thats ok. I love a fully framed headshot and without being in their face this lens can do it without being in their face.

 

While I love IS it is a tad over-rated too. I used to believe I needed IS for a lot of shots but as I learned more about exposure control and made different choices about aperture/shutter/ISO when shooting I learned I could shoot indoors, Ice hockey without IS on at all and only at ISO 800. Where IS will come in handy is to shoot as ISO 400, f/2.8 and still hit 1/250 shutterspeeds. I like to think that IS cancels me out (and I need canceling out) as far as shake and jitter.

 

Congrats and enjoy the new lens. I'd considered the canon 17-40 and the sigma 17-35 hsx lens for filler also. I picked up the sigma since it hits f/2.8 and am happy with it.

[timcorridan]

kenny, tamoron 24-75 is a toyota carola. nothing wrong with it.it works. good on gas. BUT, a canon 24-70L USM is a lincon town car. just like your 70-200L.

[erin.e]

Crap Tim they are both just tools, one maybe a little bit better constructed and a hell of a lot more expensive than the other.