Which lense for 30D would suit me better?

[jay_d.__los_angeles_]

I will be shooting my portraits and weddings with my 30D(when it

comes out). I will stick to 35mm film for landscape. Which lense

would be a better buy for me? The ef 17-40 F4L @ $665.00, or the ef-

s 17-85 F4-5.6 IS @ $525.00(which I can't interchange with my film

cam!)? Thanks greatly for any info to help...... Jay

[PuppyDigs]

Sheesh, only you can decide which is better for you. I have the 17-40 4L USM and must say it

works great on both my 10D and EOS 3. It's kinda a yawn on the 10D (small viewfinder is

underwhelming at 17mm) but is a lot of fun on the EOS 3 because of the huge viewfinder and

ultra wide perspective.

 

A F4-5.6 aperture would make for a rather dim view at the long end on any 1.6x crop body.

Might make indoor weddings a bit hard to compose. The 16-35 2.8L USM or 24-70 2.8L USM

would make better wedding glass.

[marshall_arbitman4]

>>Which lense for 30D would suit me better?<<

 

One that isn't spelled with an E at the end, for starters. As for which of those two-- one's a

very good apple. The other's a fair-to-middling orange. 40 won't help you for portraits and

5.6 won't help you for weddings. Try a 24-105 F4.. better range for people, and even though

you lose a stop from a 24-70 2.8, for example, you gain hand-holdability from the IS.

 

And again, unless you're a foreigner or speake olde englishe. . .It's a LENS. :-)

[mark_man]

What about a fast short tele prime eg 85/1.8? Would be great for weddings and portraiture on the 30D, plus still useful for landscape photography on 35mm? 85mm (or 135 with 30D) is a very useful focal length IMO.

[mutabor]

I use 24-105 F4 L with 30D and I really like the results. But I'm not a pro, just an amateur.

[jim_larson1]

I am sorry. . .what did you say your other lenses are?

 

Neither the 17-40/4L nor the 17-85/IS used alone would be adequate for what you describe. The 17-40/4L is too short, and the 17-85/IS is too slow.

 

From the tone of your message. . .I gather you have longer lenses that you use on your film camera -> and you are looking for a 17-xx lens to cover your new wide end gap.

 

Personally. . .if you don't have a need for "IS" in the 24-xx range that you have now. . .then you don't need "IS" just because you are going digital. "IS" in the 17-30mm range is not worth that much. (you don't want to photograph people at 1/2 second, do you?)

 

And if you are making "money" from the photos. . .I would highly recommend an "L" lens over a prosumer glass.

 

And if you are making "money" from the photos. . . I would highly recommend you bring your film camera to the wedding. If one camera has an "issue", you want to have a backup. And you don't want to have lenses that are only usable on one camera.

[pto189]

You should have asked this question at Wedding and Social Event forum. By the way, wedding = f/2.8L (16-35, 17-55, 24-70 and/or 70-200 IS).

[henrik.ploug]

I would get the new 17-55mm f2,8 IS ($1150). It is fast and it has IS, so it would be perfect for low light situations like weddings.

 

But Jim says: "IS in the 17-30mm range is not worth that much. (you don't want to photograph people at 1/2 second, do you?"

 

Well, with a 17mm lens on a 1,6 crop camera most people can handhold at a shutter speed of about 1/30 sec. (1/(17x1,6) = 1/27,2). The IS will give you another three stops, so you can shoot non-moving subjects at a shutter speed of 1/4 second. This is to slow for moving people, but not for people sitting still.

 

Besides your shots at 1/30 sec will be sharper with IS than without - and even more so at 1/15 or 1/8 sec.

 

Of course you can use a flash, but this would make you the center of the wedding instead of the bride and the groom.

 

A lot of full-frame camera-owners have anticipated the soon death of the 1,6 format. Now they complain, because they can't use the 17-55mm f2,8 IS on their full frame cameras. They will have to use the slower 24-105mm f4 IS instead.

 

If I were you, I would embrace your new DSLR and get rid of your old film-camera. If you need anything wider than 17mm (for landscape), you can always get one of the excellent 1,6 crop ultrawides.

[PuppyDigs]

"And again, unless you're a foreigner or speake olde englishe. . .It's a LENS"

 

My Webster's dictionary lists "lense" as an alternate spelling to "lens." ON the other hand, my

American Heritage doesn't even include it. I see "lense" so often on these forums it must be

pretty standard usage somewhere.

[bellavance]

Why not the Canon 24-70/2.8L? It would be equivalent to 38-112/2.8 on your 30D.

 

It's the lens I use the most on my 20D. Great performance and shallow depth of field.

 

Pierre

[marshall_arbitman4]

>>it must be pretty standard usage somewhere..<<

 

Not in books, magazines or American newspapers. Nor in British literature, or scientific

papers that I've encountered. Certainly not in any published work I've seen on lenses or

photography.

 

It's used, chiefly, on-line--by people who also use develope and wierd and write

predominate, where predominant should go.

 

Now I'm no pedant. Words evolve with usage and so does spelling. What bugs me about

lense, though, is here you've got a word evolving--through ignorance or phony

formality--from a perfectly clean and simple three letters to four. And the fourth letter

adds nothing. It's like growing a second appendix.

 

As for Jay's question, it has no answer.

 

That said, I recommend getting a Sigma.. . . GDR.

[andrew robertson]

Lense is a holdover, but it is not standard usage. And wait and get the 17-55 f/2.8 IS!

[jay_d.__los_angeles_]

Ok guys, you all got me on my spelling mistake! LOL. Next time I'll make sure I don't post a ? after a night of beer drinking with my bro.. Ha ha! Thanks to the ones that have given advice. Jay

[jim_larson1]

Can we at least wait to see a review of the 17-55/IS before we declare it to be the ultimate wedding lens?

 

2.8, IS, and "L" image quality sound too good to be true at this price point. After all, the 16-35/2.8L is somewhat more expensive, yet lacks "IS". .

 

. .true the 17-55/IS is and EF-S lens, so therefore could be cheaper (smaller image=less glass= lower production cost), but that thinking has not held with any EF-S lens released to date.

[pto189]

<i>Not in books, magazines or American newspapers. Nor in British literature, or scientific papers that I've encountered. Certainly not in any published work I've seen on lenses or photography.

 

It's used, chiefly, on-line--by people who also use develope and wierd and write predominate, where predominant should go.

Now I'm no pedant. Words evolve with usage and so does spelling. What bugs me about lense, though, is here you've got a word evolving--through ignorance or phony formality--from a perfectly clean and simple three letters to four. And the fourth letter adds nothing. It's like growing a second appendix.</i><p>Please check your grammar and spelling.

[e._r._averitt]

Puppy is correct on dual spellings. Lens and lense mean the same thing, and both are correct!

 

 

Now for the goody part of your question, pros use f2.8 lenses, and the rest of us will get by with our f4.0's. The lens of choice,is the 24-70f2.8, AKA "the wedding lens". Just run a search in this forum for "the wedding lens" and you will see what I mean.

 

"Happy Trails" to you--- I mean good luck with your photos, from fello photo.net person, E. R. Averitt

 

Looking forward to hearing from you-ll will soon, adios and goodnight.

[e._r._averitt]

Ah, another typo, meant to write fellow instead of fello.

[henrik.ploug]

"Can we at least wait to see a review of the 17-55/IS before we declare it to be the ultimate wedding lens?"

 

I agree. Of course we will have to wait. My argument is based on the specifications alone.

 

"2.8, IS, and "L" image quality sound too good to be true at this price point. After all, the 16-35/2.8L is somewhat more expensive, yet lacks "IS"...true the 17-55/IS is and EF-S lens, so therefore could be cheaper (smaller image=less glass= lower production cost), but that thinking has not held with any EF-S lens released to date."

 

Pricing has nothing to do with production cost. Canon will charge whatever they think the consumers will pay. And assuming that the lens is sharp, a lot of consumers - me included - are willing to pay $1150 for a f2,8 IS lens (unless Sigma, Tokina or Tamron can produce a similar, but cheaper lens).

 

Following the same logic Canon could have raised the price, if they had made it full frame and put a red ring on the lens. A lot of people are willing to pay for the red stripe.

 

But by making it an EF-S they make the statement, that 1,6 crop cameras are here to stay for a long time. If they can convince the consumers, that this statement is true (which I think it is), it will be easyer for them to sell the new 30D and other cropped cameras and cropped lenses to come in the future.

[jim_larson1]

<i>But by making it an EF-S they make the statement, that 1,6 crop cameras are here to stay for a long time. If they can convince the consumers, that this statement is true (which I think it is), it will be easyer for them to sell the new 30D and other cropped cameras and cropped lenses to come in the future.</i>

<p>

I tend to agree. Also. . .the fact that the 30D sports the same imaging system as the 20D also atests to the stagnation, I mean stability, of this market segment

[henrik.ploug]

"Also. . .the fact that the 30D sports the same imaging system as the 20D also atests to the stagnation, I mean stability, of this market segment"

 

LOL