cindy_stephenson Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 Ok pro's. Currently I have the 17-85IS lens on my 40D. I want something a little crisper if ya will in shooting portraits with studio lighting but I also want some what of a everyday walk around lens. So what would you suggest bewtween these choices or would ya suggest selling the 17-85IS and buying two of the others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubreyp Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 I think the 50mm is a little long on a crop body to make a good walk-around lens. It does make an excellent portrait lens on a crop body though. If you're concerned about budget, maybe pick up a used Olympus Zuiko 50mm f1.4 and adapter for less than $100. That way you can kep the 17-85, which seems like a great walk-around lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ty_mixon Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 I'm no pro, but I've used the 'cheap' 50mm 1.4 lens on a Canon 350 & I loved it. I just bought one to go with my 450 that is arriving Monday. It's hard to go wrong with that lens, as it's so inexpensive & does so well. Plus, primes make you think more about the shot (in my very limited exp) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdigi Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 Aubrey, I have the 50 1.4 and it is a great portrait lens but not a good walk around lens ( to long) . I just ordered a 28 1.8 to use as a walk around when I want fast and small. I hear the 17-55 is great but $1000 for an EF-S yikes, maybe a Tamron 17-50 2.8? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdigi Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 sorry that was meant for Cindy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve torelli Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 There are a lot of comments in photo.net about the 50mm being "too long" on a cropped sensor body for a walk around or portrait lens as if it's chiseled on a stone tablet somewhere.That's not true IMO. Whether or not it is true will depend greatly on the individual and their needs. No matter what, it's a fine lens. I do think that a mid-FL zoom is the way to go for a walk about though. Can't comment on the Sigma but can say that the 17-55 2.8IS is a great lens and will serve you very will as a walk around/landscape lens if you don't mind the price.Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john e v bailey Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 I would go with the 17-55....the 50 isn't as versatile, the 24-60 won't give you the wide-angle you'll have been used to going back to 17 on the 17-85 which I would find more creatively restrictive than losing going from 55 to 85. FYI..A few years back I started with the 17-85 on a 350D, I now have the 17-55 on a 40D and you will like the sharpness! The 17-85mm hasn't gone back on but I have to admit I haven't done much "walking around" recently...and when I do I carry my bag so I have choices of wider (10-22) or longer (70-200, 300) lenses :/ I did some studio work last weekend with the 17-55 and was very happy with it...but I'm sure you've read all the glowing reviews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken munn Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 The Sigma looks like it would be a good studio lens for full frame, but it seems an odd choice as a crop-box walkaround. It's big (82mm filter), heavy, and has a not very useful wide end (37mm eq). Apart from price it's difficult to see why you'd choose it rather than Canon's 24-70L (which is also not a great crop walkaround) I'd keep your 17-85 as your general purpose lens, and get the 50 (f1.4 or f1.8) for studio portraiture as a first move. I've not used the 17-85 but many of those that have seem to conclude that it is very capable if used well. If, subsequently, you still want to replace the 17-85 make that the subject of a subsequent decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_dark Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 For portraits, the 50 1.8 or 1.4 is a great choice. For general 'walk around' photography, the 17-55 2.8 is probably going to be a better more versatile lens. Did you mean Sigma 24-70 2.8 in your title? I've never used that particular one, but i've heard it's a bit heavy, and depending on who you listen to, kind of hit or miss on quality. Tamron also makes a 28-70 2.8 that is apparently not too shabby and a lot lighter. I've got the 24-70 2.8 L which is an EXCELLENT lens... but it is a bit on the heavy side, pretty expensive, and might not quite be wide enough for you if it's your only lens. In your case, i'd probably save up your pennies for the 17-55 IS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c jensen Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 Cindy - I'm a huge fan of the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I leave this lens on my 40d, and leave a 24-105 f/4L IS on my 5d. You'll see some skepticism here and there on the 17-55 because of its price, but from my perspective it is every bit as sharp, and almost as well built, as the 24-105 which is an L. I suscribe to the theory that Canon won't give it the L designation because it is EF-S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_worth Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 I am pleased with my 17-55mm as it is a very versatile walkaround lens. Yes, it's overpriced, but I don't regret the investment. I would not worry about the commitment to crop bodies since they will be around for a long while, IMO. But if you plan to go full-frame at some point, and don't want to hold onto a crop body as a backup, then it is a consideration. I think Steve is right -- whether or not the 50mm works as a walkaround lens (on a crop body) depends on you (doesn't work so well for me). --Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert lui Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 The EF-S 17-85 IS is a great choice for travel/vacation photography. I own one. The EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS is a great choice for photojournalist/wedding photography. I don't own one. The EF 50mm f2.5 Compact Macro is a very sharp lens, and it is distortion free at all distances. I own one. 50mm is Scott Eaton's preferred focal length for a 1.6x camera portrait lens. As you can see, it is horses for courses, when it comes to picking a lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_gu Posted May 3, 2008 Share Posted May 3, 2008 "Pros"...I feel intimidated answering this thread, but here's what I think anyway. I have not used the Sigma 24-60/2.8, but from the MTF charts, it looks quite disappointing compared to the 24-70/2.8. However, it is less than $300 on eBay. If you have the money, why not just go with the 17-55 and a 50/1.4? I have the 17-85, and I think I can relate to your reasons to replacing it. It's an okay performer at about 35mm to 50mm, but the wider-end gets quite interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen sullivan Posted May 3, 2008 Share Posted May 3, 2008 I've shot many great Portraits with an EF 50 1.4 & EF 85 1.8 on a 20D Rent each lens and see wich works best for your setup. You won't go wrong with either lens. As for a walk around prime, the EF 28 1.8 is darn sweet. But you'll be doing a lot of CA fixing in PS. Also look at the EF 17-40 f/4L (it will be a 27-64 on your 40D) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerleekam Posted May 3, 2008 Share Posted May 3, 2008 Since you have the 17-85 already (which is a good walk around), an inexpensive solution may be to add the Canon 60 mm 2.8 which is a little gem. Gets rave reviews optically and excellent for portraits and macro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindy_stephenson Posted May 5, 2008 Author Share Posted May 5, 2008 Wow...so many choices. Now does anyone have a 17-55 f/2.8 IS or a 50 f/1.4 for sale? Looking to buy. Thanks to all for good advise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now