A set of Lenses?

[alp_hizal]

thank you all for this very kind and deep comments!

 

i think i'll buy the 70-200 f/4 non is in a week :)

 

then we'll discuss again

 

thanks a lot!

[alp_hizal]

Dear William,

 

thank you very much!

 

i actually think of buying a 5D after its new version pops out.. and use it for wide angle... as

a result wide lenses will have to wait for me to buy them :)

[William Michael]

>>> my wifes 40D came with a 17-85 IS USM lens, I thought that the range of this lens would have been a great mixture, why do some of the commentators hate it so much? <<< (NR)

 

Well not `hate`: the lens`s zoom range on an APS-C camera is very nice, that has nothing to do with why I would not choose a lens like the EF-S 17 to 85.

 

My reasons for NOT using a lens like this in priority, are:

 

1. Maximum aperture is too slow.

 

2. Maximum aperture varies throughout the zoom range

 

3. It is an EF-S lens.

 

Rationale:

 

1. Inevitably len`s speed will be the defining criterion to make a shot possible or impossible and the other (about 10) reasons for choosing a faster lens over a slower lens.

 

2. Variance of MA over the zoom range can stuff Exposure: Tx; Av; and Manual; especially when working under time pressure.

 

3. Lack of compatibility with a two format system

 

WW

[jerry_cipriano3]

Alp - I own the 50/1.8, 70-200/4 non-IS, Tamron 17-50/2.8, and Canon 17-40.. I do NOT have the 85/1.8 and won't comment on that one.

 

Since you have decided on the 70-200/4 non-IS, I assume budget priorities have intervened. The 70-200 non-IS id capable of taking beautiful pictures. Good choice. I believe that nobody can legitimately criticize any of the Canon 70-200L lenses.

 

With all due respect to William W., many of whose posts I have read and respect, I think the Tamron 17-50 may be an excellent choice for you if incompatibility with full frame cameras is not an issue for you. I have the 17-40, which I've owned for years, and it is capable of great photos if I don't screw up. I got the Tamron 17-50 for my wife, but I have used it a number of times. I took about 50 comparison shots with it and my 17-40. They have slightly different strengths, but optically are both very close. While the Tamron is APS-C only, that wasn't a factor for my wife and may not be a factor for you. The direction of the manual focus ring is not important because that's something you'll get used to quickly. What is great is the image quality, the light weight and small size, and the 2.8 max. aperture. If my criteria didn't include compatibility with full frame cameras, I'd steal it from my wife.

 

I don't use the 50/1.8 often, but when I need a low-light lens, it is invaluable. It has very good resolution and color. It auto-focuses sufficiently fast enough. The skinny MF ring has annoyed me for nearly 20 years, but I don't believe the 50/1.4 is worth the extra money to me. I would rather apply that money to some other priority. Thus the 50/1.8 has remained with me for 20 years.

[William Michael]

>>> With all due respect . . . I think the Tamron 17-50 may be an excellent choice for you if incompatibility with full frame cameras is not an issue for you. <<< (JC)

 

This is so for many, I agree: your points are well expanded and noted.

 

I highlighted the reasons why I did not want this tamron lens (and also did not choose the Canon EF-S 17 to 55F2.8IS).

 

I know of Wedding Pros that get great use from this Tamron lens: the two points I specifically made were highlighting its (possible) shortcomings, especially for me.

 

I think the different MF ring rotation is more important under the time pressures of professional shooting.

 

WW