Missing Canon Lens

[jonathan_edwards2]

I shoot a lot of wedding photography in dark churches, and find that a low

apperature rating is invaluable. I often use primes (50 and 85), and have the

70-200 f/2.8 IS. But I find that I am at a loss for a good zoom lens under 70

with a low apperature rating. I have the 28-135, and absolutely love the lens

for all around use, but sometimes feel I need the lower f stop. I was looking

at the 24-70 f/2.8, but can't justify shelling out so much money for an L

series lens without IS. It seems obvious to me that they need a 24-70(ish)

lens with a low apperature and IS. Any thoughts on this missing lens.

[anthony_hicks]

The 17-55/2.8IS comes close... presuming of course that you are using a 1.6x crop camera. I guess Canon might yet add IS to the 24-70/2.8, but IMHO that lens is heavy enough and expensive enough already!

[William Michael]

>>> It seems obvious to me that they need a 24-70(ish) lens with a low apperature and IS. Any thoughts on this missing lens.

<<<

 

 

The EF-S 17 to 55F2.8 IS would be the `equivalent` for an APS-C format camera.

 

 

The EF 24 to 105F4 IS is the closest to it, at the moment.

 

 

WW

[arie_vandervelden1]

It'd be great if there was a 35-85/2, f/2 all the way. But there isn't....

[KenPapai]

"It'd be great if there was a 35-85/2, f/2 all the way..."

 

How MUCH money are you will to spend for it? The 24-70 2.8 is already heavy, just think if you doubled its speed to f/2 !

[arie_vandervelden1]

It'd have a reduced range (35 mm at the low end instead of 24 mm).<P>

 

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/equipment/olympus/43_lenses/90-250_35-100_zuiko_lenses.html">Olympus makes a 35-100/2</A><P>

 

Not cheap, but maybe worth it for wedding photogs.

[jonathan_edwards2]

The olympus lens would be awsome in a canon make, though I agree price tag is a little hefty. But in high quality lenses you get what you pay for.

[bob_osullivan]

William W is right.

 

I own both those lenses. I know it's redundant, but I started with film, hence the 24-105 IS, and migrated to Digital (30D) hence the 17-55 IS. I just can't part with either of them. And it's nice to have a backup.

 

I think Canon isn't so concerned about adding IS to the 24-70 because at that focal lenght, IS is not so critical. That and the fact that we can use flash, at least at a reception and for formals.

 

So, if you have a 1.6 get a 17-55 2.8 IS. (it's really an "L" lens without the weather sealing and metal shell). IQ is suprior ot all my "L" lenses as if focus speed.

 

If you have a full frame sensor, get the 24-105 4 IS. I get a solid 3 stops out of the IS on this lens.

 

I don't know your shooting style, but I'm always wearing to cameras. Usually one with zoom and one with fast prime for portraits on the fly.

 

17-55 with 85 or 70-200 with 35 for options and flexibility.

[kanellopoulos]

Just try the 24-70. Even without IS, it is my best lens by far. Since I got it, soon after my 5D, the two have stuck together and are inseparable. I find it better than my 70-200 f/4 L no-IS.

 

Have a look: http://www.photo.net/photo/6814648

[jonathan_edwards2]

I currently shoot with the 30D and a rebel as a backup. But I have high hopes of switching to a full frame camera within a year. Though the sounds of the 17-55 sounds like a nice lens, and since I would still be using the 30D as a backup it maybe a nice option for that camera. The problem I would see with a 17-55 lens is that it doesn't have as long a reach for spontaneous closeups. Basically it comes down to me wanting something that doesn't exist yet.

[colin carron]

Sigma make several nice quality f2.8 standard zooms. None have IS but they are a lot cheaper than Canon L lenses.

 

Again without IS but cheaper than Canon there is also the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. This has an excellent reputation if you can find a good one.

[joshroot]

Having both the 24-70/2.8 for my 5D and the 17-55/2.8 IS for my Xti, I can honestly say that the IS is cool, but not really that crucial in that particular focal length.

 

And given how little difference there is in size between those two lenses, I would not want to carry a 24-70/2.8 IS.

[jonathan_edwards2]

I guess thats true that you don't really require IS on the shorter focal lengths. Though I have a few Sigma lenses and just don't think they measure up to the quality of the canon lenses. Could be that they were just cheap lenses period. I will look into it though.

[hakon_soreide]

When you're taking pictures of moving subjects, there is no substitute for fast lenses, and that means primes. 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm. While a 35-135mm f1.8 with full-frame image circle sounds fun, it would cost and weigh more than getting extra cameras for the different primes.

[hakon_soreide]

As for the 35-100mm Oly, that is a reduced 4/3 image circle, making it possible to make one without breaking either the bank or your back... A Canon version would be huge.

[alan_myers]

Hi,

 

I think you should take another look at the 24-70. It's a great lens and IS is of little use since if you used it you'd be getting into shutter speeds where subject motion would be of as much or more concern than camera shake.

 

The 17-55 IS a very good alternative since you are using crop sensor cameras. I haven't personally used it, but see that it gets high praise. However, it's not a whole lot cheaper than the 24-70 and as an EF-S lens the 17-55 wouldn't be usable if you ever go to a full frame camera (which are quite popular among wedding photographers).

 

I don't get the need to have every focal length covered. The gap between the 17-55 and your 70-200 is minimal. If you want to minimize changing lenses, how about getting a second or third camera body.

 

I use two 30D and a 10D for event photography. A lot of my shooting is with 24-70 on one of the 30D, 70-200 on the other.

 

On the other hand, I shot a dinner party recently with nothing but primes: 20/2.8, 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. That meant a lot of lens switching, but that's just part of the game.

 

Another sporting event had me shooting with 70-200 on one camera, 300/2.8 on the other.

 

A couple things I can assure you...

 

There is no "perfect lens".

 

You'll always find your kit falls short in one way or another, and that you could really use another lens or whatever.

[yakim_peled1]

>> Having both the 24-70/2.8 for my 5D and the 17-55/2.8 IS for my Xti, I can honestly say that the IS is cool, but not really that crucial in that particular focal length.

 

 

As this is an opinion, I will voice mine: I humbly disagree. I bought the 24-105/4 IS for the sole reason of having IS in the sub-70mm range (I also have the 70-200/2.8 IS). However, now that I have it, I want more. I will thus replace it with the 17-55/2.8 IS to get even more.

 

Foe shallow DoF I have the 35/1.4 but I have found out that when light gets really low, IS trumps faster aperture as long as handholding ability is concerned.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[scott_gardner1]

IMO, this really comes down to EF-S vs. EF.

 

If you're shooting a crop cam, it seems to me that the comparison comes down to the two IS lenses. The 24-70 'L' has a *bit* more reach on the long end (~1 degree). To me, that's a very small bit of cropping in post production. The 17-55 'sort of L' gives you an additional 5.5 degrees on the wide end than any 24mm lens.

 

So, there simply isn't much difference between the 17-55 and 24-70 on the long end. The 105mm does bring you 4.5 degrees "closer". Of course you lose a whole stop with that option.

 

If you're sure you're going to end up with a full-frame body, it may make sense to get an EF lens now. BTW, why do you want the FF body?

 

Only you can decide what suits your needs. Good luck!/Scott

[dogbert]

Pentax/Sony/Olympus have solved this dilmmna by putting IS in the body. I wish Canon would do the same. I agree with Yakim, IS is an important tool not just at low shutter speeed but helps photo sharpness even at or above conventional handholdable speeds.

 

For all of Canons trumpeting of IS in the lens as being superior technology, they are not offering it any affordable primes under 300 mm, nor the 24-70/f2.8, nor ultrawide zooms.

[alan_green4]

the 17-55 (IS) is so superior it would be justified buying a 1.6 body just so you could use this lens

[jimstrutz]

"the 17-55 (IS) is so superior it would be justified buying a 1.6 body just so you could use this lens"

 

I agree. In fact, the existence of the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a compelling reason to stick with, or move to, crop frame bodies -- at least until the the 24-70 f/2.8L adds "IS" to the name. I find IS in a normal range zoom to be crucial at weddings. I can't even remember how I worked without it. I certainly don't want to go back.

 

These are, of course, all just personal opinions, but there's mine.

[alan_green4]

Jim

 

yes. can't wait till the 50d hits. that and a 17-55 will be the goods. i can see a day when 1.6 bodies will be the pro standard for '35mm' shooting and full frame bodies will be reserved for 'medium format'-style shooting, or high-end stuff like the olympics or fashion.

 

i'm not totally satisfied with the 40d but it's a great camera. was considering a ff body, but not anymore.

 

ag

[yakim_peled1]

>> the 17-55 (IS) is so superior it would be justified buying a 1.6 body just so you could use this lens

 

May I add the 10-22 to this list? Initially I bought the 40D as something to get me going till Canon will fix the 1D Mk III but after buying the 10-22 I am positive I will keep it just to be able to use it. Apart from BQ it is every bit as good as the 17-40/4 and in the flare resistance department it is even better. For me it is enough to call it a winner.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[robert_donnelly]

I use the 17-55mm f/2.8 as my walk-around lens for my 40D and love it. I also agree with Yakim - the 10-22mm is a great lens to go to when I need more width.

[alan_green4]

yes, the 10-22 is a very fine performer with only a couple minor concessions due to its extreme range. compliments the 17-55 nicely.

 

am waiting for a high-end tele zoom ef-s to round out the line