my next lens.

[jake_izumi]

hi all , this is a great forum and I was reading it for a quite long time , but

was shy to join and ask a question here.

 

but I am so agonized over my lens selection, every day thinking of what to buy

and get rid of , so if you can please help me .

 

first ,my current body is: EOS400D Rebel XTI. My lenses are :1 Canon 17-85IS,2

Canon EF50F1.8, 3 Canon 70-300IS,4 Sigma 18-200,5 Sigma 30mm F1.4.

 

I am thinking about getting a new lens either UWA(EF-S10-22) or a macro (EF-S60)

and get rid of the Sigma 30 and 18-200.

 

Or I will trade the 2 Sigmas for the EF-S10-22,Tamron 17-50 or EF-S60.

 

I can not afford to buy 3 at the same time , so which one should I get

first?

 

I think I will need a general purpose lens other than my 17-85IS ,maybe a

faster lens with a bit more resolving power?

 

But I'm also interested in UWA(but not sure really need the focal range) and

macro work (mostly flowers and product photos so I do not need long working

distance).

 

 

In a few days , I am leaving to Malaysia , I work in Thailand and love street

photography and flowers.

 

Any input appreciated. Jake.

[rainer_t]

You have ...

 

... the range of 18-200 covered twice ... with the 17-85 plus 70-300, and also with the 18-200

 

... two decent primes 50/1.8 and 30/1.4

 

you want ... 1) a better optical quality for a general purpose lens, 2) ultrawide, 3) macro.

 

- for 1) Get rid of the EFS 17-85 ... that should sell for enough to

get the Tamron 17-50/2.8. (Be aware of what you give up ... range, USM, FTM, IS ... just for f/2.8 and a bit better MTFs ... that said, I personally love the Tamron).

 

- for 2) Get rid of the Sigma 18-200, since the range is already covered and also of the 30/1.4. (It seems the 30/1.4 isn't one of your favorite lenses ... I personally like it, but only for lowlight).

Instead of the EFS10-22 (which is very nice, but also the dearest ultrawide), get the Sigma 10-20 or the Tokina 12-24 ... The range of the Sigma would give you more ultrawide, the Tokina is better build. Both are less expensive than the EFS10-22.

 

- for 3) Especially macro very often means manual focus and tripod. Instead of the EFS60 (which is very good, but also not cheap), you might start with an older M42 macro lens plus M42-EOS adapter.

 

If you feel that macro is more important to you than ultrawide is, you might skip the ultrawide for now, and get the efs60 from what you get for the 18-200 and the 30/1.4.

 

just my 2 cents ... Rainer

[jake_izumi]

Thanks Rainer , I'll get rid of the 18-200 ASAP and I also want to get rid of the kit, but any one buys it?

 

Why do you think the Sigma 10-20 is better than the Canon?

 

What can I do with the super wide angle lens other than landscapes or buildings ?

 

I appreciate your comment and quick reply.

[rainer_t]

-- "Why do you think the Sigma 10-20 is better than the Canon?"

 

Actually, I don't think so ... But it only costs about 2/3 of the price of the canon ... therefore it might be a good choice if the budget is tight. (I personally use the efs10-22, and I prefer it over the Sigma 10-20 and the Tokina 12-24).

 

-- "What can I do with the super wide angle lens other than landscapes or buildings ?"

 

Hmmm, the way you ask this makes me think that you don't really need an

ultrawide lens right now. The point is, landscapes and buildings are just very obvious examples, but a lot of things can be done with ultrawides ...

not everything really looks good, and composition with ultrawides can be really difficult.

 

Your question should be what YOU want to do with an ultrawide. May be you find, that in most cases the 17mm will be wide enough. In that case, why waste money on a lens you don't need. It's those cases when you are already on 17mm, and when you cannot step back, and there is not enough in the frame, when you need the ultrawide.

 

Regarding the potential sale of your 18-200 and the kitlens ... I don't know how prices for used lens are where you live ... here (germany) the 18-200 would sell for about 250euro, and the kitlens

for 40 to 50euros on e*ay. (The 30/1.4 would go for about 250euro).

[images_in_light_north_west]

get rid of the 17-85 get good glass, maybe 17-40f4L or 10-22 if you like very wide

[jeffreyfortuna]

What better 'general purpose' lens is there for a crop sensor than the 17-85mm IS? I'd like to know because I have a 20D and I would buy it. I think the 17-85 has great range and a good copy of IS. The build quality isn't very good but for the money I just don't know of a better walk around lens.

I own the Canon 10-22mm and love it, it's great for what it is.

 

Have fun in Malaysia.

 

Jeffrey

[rainer_t]

-- "What better 'general purpose' lens is there for a crop sensor than the 17-85mm IS?"

 

Depends on your needs and your budget ... if you need a faster lens (and the OP seems to want that) the 17-85 isn't the best general purpose lens. If budget is unlimited ... how about the EFS 17-55/2.8 IS USM.

But it's obvious, that you have to give up range for speed.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>What better 'general purpose' lens is there for a crop sensor than the 17-85mm IS?</i></p><p>Quite a few. In my particular order of preference:</p><ol><li>EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM</li><li>EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM</li><li>EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM</li><li>EF 35mm f/1.4L USM</li><li>EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM</li><li>EF 17-40mm f/4L USM</li><li>EF 35mm f/2</li></ol>

[garry_tan]

I would argue the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM is better than the 24-70mm f/2.8L on a 1.6x crop because:

 

a) it has IS

 

b) it is wider angle, which is actually very useful for walking around.

 

c) is optically excellent, L-class.

[m_barbu1]

Those are good arguements. I prefer the focal length range of 24-70mm and consider that to be more versatile on a 20D (50mm is a focal length I seldom use on a 20D, so the 80mm equivalent is welcome to me) as a "one size fits all" type lens.

[jim_d5]

I would have to recommend the 17-40 f/4L. It is an amazing lens and affordable for an L. Its sharpness is on par if not better than its bigger and twice as expensive brother the 16-35 f/2.8L.

 

I am not happy with the many comments that these EF-S lenses, the 17-85 and the 10-22 are "L-class". They simply are not, I have compared them. Each of these EF-S lenses have L quality sharpness in the center. However, they certainly do not have the contrast or the color reproduction of any L lens. When I compare color rich images shot with the 17-40 L compared to the 17-85 IS, the L images just jump out at you and seem to come out of the paper while the 17-85 clearly lags in vivid contrast and the perceived subconsious effects and detail that entails.

 

I think the most obvious and undisputable advantage of L glass is all in the colors. It is this that sets them apart. Because image quality factors such as tack sharpness, nice bokeh, low vignetting, etc can be found in non-L glass. But the color aspect is exclusively L, with the only exception being the 50mm's even though the 1.8 isn't quite L contrast wise.

 

I have come to the conclusion that the red ring and the letter L mean something, indeed. Even on the affordable L lenses, you get L color, contrast, and IQ in all its glory. That stamp is Canon's approval and I am now a true believer, once you go L you can't go back.

[jimstrutz]

J.D. I don't see the 17-85 being put in anybody's L classification system. It's just a decent consumer lens with a couple optical foibles. However, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is often put in with the L lenses for optical quality. It's quite an amazing lens, and adds Image Stabilization to an f/2.8 normal zoom lens. There's nothing in Canon's full frame system like that, L or not. This is not an L lens because it's not built like one. Some say the same for the 10-22, but I don't know as I've never used it.

 

Canon has a number of small primes that are optically as good as, and sometimes better than, the Canon L series of the same focal length. But they have smaller apertures and less luxurious build quality.

 

Jake, for a crop frame Canon DSLR like the XTi, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a better lens for most people. It's optically as good as the 17-40 f/4L, but has a longer range, is one stop faster, and adds IS. What's not to love? It's downsides are that it will not work on full frame cameras, and is not built as well as a Canon L lens.

 

However, if think you will "...need a general purpose lens other than my 17-85 IS, maybe a faster lens with a bit more resolving power?" for your 400D/XTi, there is nothing better. Nothing! But if you want a wider lens than you have now, the Canon 10-22 is probably the best available. I have the Tokina 12-24, and it is also very good, but is not as wide.

[jake_izumi]

Thanks for so many inputs ,I am so surprised. Well, I can not afford for most of L lenses , but I can afford for the 17-40L.

 

Hi Jim,the 17-55Is is the lens I really would like to buy but in where I am working now, it costs about 1500 US, so I am thinking of getting the Tamron,which costs only 300US here.

 

Hi Rainer , I was glad to hear that actually you prefer the Canon over the Sigma 10-20 , since I do not like Sigmas in general , and in fact , I want to avoid them intact unless they are obviously better than equivalnet Canons or Tmarons.

 

There are many many small , narrow streets in Malaysia with alot of street noodle stands on side wlaks and I can not go back to get myself enough room to be able to shoot wide , so I think I want to get the EF-S10-22.

 

But I'll also go to a botanical garden and so I may want to get the EF-S60 first, any way , I think I will get both but this time , I can get only one of them.

 

Is the IQ of the 17-40L much better than that of the 17-50 Tamron?

 

I personally like my 17-85IS but I would like to get a constant f2.8 lens for many portrait and good bokeh.

 

BTW, I can sell my 18-200 for about 300US here , but it is difficult to sell the kit here ....actually, I already sold the 18-200 for 320US.

 

I am happy about that.

 

Tak care all and tahnks alot for your time.

[rainer_t]

-- "Is the IQ of the 17-40L much better than that of the 17-50 Tamron?"

 

Actually, this has beed discussed oftern (and often controversal).

I think it's an accepted fact, that build quality of the L is way better than the Tamron. Also, USM, FTM and a non-rotatig focusring is something to value. On top, the 17-40L is sealed.

 

But if it's only image quality you compare, I dare say, the Tamron is en par with the L, and it is a stop faster. You might have a look at ...

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1740_4/index.htm

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28/index.htm

 

-- "I personally like my 17-85IS but I would like to get a constant f2.8 lens for many portrait and good bokeh."

 

While being a nice general purpose lens, the Tamron is not ideal for portraits. The classical portrait range is 80mm to 135mm on fullframe, this translates into 50mm to 80mm on APS-C sized sensors. So, the 17-50 doesn't cover the range.

 

You could go for the EFS10-22 plus a lens like the Tamron 28-75/2.8.

THat would cover most of the 'portrait range' nicely, but leaves you

without a lens going from wide to tele. Means you'll have to swap lenses more often.

[jake_izumi]

Thank you Rainer again , your knowledge is amazing , I checked out those reviews and surprised with the numbers , the Tamron has better resolving power and much cheaper , I might get it for walk-around stuff, it's cheap here any way.

 

The L costs 500 US more than the Tamron in where I am working , so unless it is "much" better than the cheap Tamron , I can't justify paying that much more to get the L .

 

Plus, the L has shorter tel end .

 

Sounds like now , what I need to get is the 10-22 since there are many narrow and tight streets in China and Malaysia , I will try to see if 17mm is wide enough in those small space , then , I like to buy the Tamron and if not , I will have to buy the expensive EF-S10-22.

 

Thanks very much for your time.