All-around 50d Lens

[netrinogr]

<p>Hi,<br>

I will probably buy in the next days the Canon 50D and I want to choose my primary lens. All this time I was checking lenses for Mark II, so I must go from the beginning. (change of plans)<br>

I want a lens to cover from wide-angle to short tele, and be as fast (big aperture ex 2.8) as possible.<br>

The budget is around 500-600 euros (=around 700 dollars). Another spec is that all the lenses and equipment I buy from now on I would like to keep them and make a strong system, even if I change some time to FF body.<br>

For example on a first look I checked Canon 17-40 f/4L (f/4?) and Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5...<br>

Any ideas?</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Within your specifications the Canon EF 17-40/4 L might just be the best. Except when you truly need f2.8 for available light or shallow depth of field.</p>

<p>Of course if the lens would be just for the 50D a Tamron 17-50/2.8 or a Canon 17-55/2.8 IS would come to mind.</p>

<p>You could also just get the IS version of the kitlens and see what you can do with that. It's so cheap that it's not much of a loss when you go full frame. Just make sure all your other lenses do cover a full frame. (Like a 50/1.4 or a nice 70-200...)</p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, PERIOD. Once you fo FF you can sale it with almos no loss.</p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>Yup, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. If you need wide angle that lens is really nice and once you move up to FF, you can sale it or keep it with your 50D as a back up combo and get something like the 24-70 or 24-105 to go with your FF camera.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>You're just buying an APS-C camera new, and you're going to hobble your lens choices by only buying lenses for 35mm sensor cameras? Not such a good idea. Buy what you need now, and I'd recommend you at least look at the EF-S 17-87mm IS that meets most of your criteria, including price, except that it is for APS-C only, and is slower.<br>

As indicated, the new kit lens is very good for the money though, and you could supplement it with the "kit" telephoto EF-S 55-200 IS and have money left over for a few other lenses, including the 50mm f/1.8 or perhaps even a used 50mm f/1.4 for low light shooting.</p>

<p>I trust your budget is just for this lens, not for the camera and lens-or you're in deep trouble.</p>

 

[tdigi]

<p>I second JDM get whats best for your system now or just get a used 5D if money is an issue. Getting 35mm lenses on a 1.6 body is not a great idea ( I did it for a few years and it was frustrating ) . Maybe a 40D and put that money you save toward a lens. Your asking a lot for that much money so a good compromise is a fast prime and a 17-XX zoom. or a used 5D and a 28-135 and a 50 1.8.</p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>$2100, should just about get you a used 5D and a 24-105 f4 IS</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>JDM has a typo up there...that should be the 17-85mm IS, I'm sure. I had this lens until I recently sold it (no longer needed) and always found it to be quite decent. Not nearly as crisp as the 17-55mm though. Sounds like your budget is tight, but if you can possibly save a little more, the 17-55mm is just simply excellent. If you do go full frame at some point, I suspect the 17-55 will command a very good price should you decide to sell it.</p>

[Brad_]

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It's within your budget and is a great lens. Half the price of the canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS, smaller, and

lighter weight.

 

It's about the only lens I use for street shooting.

[JDMvW]

<p>Yes, I noticed it too late to edit it to 17-85mm IS. I don't think I've ever seen an 87mm that was acknowledged as such.</p>

[roberto_patrizi]

<p>Why do you need a fast lens? For comfort framing in low light (lighter viewfinder)? For shallow DOF? For the superior performance they usually provide?</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">I simply can not praise my 17-55/2.8 IS enough. To give you an idea how much I like it let me say that I traded 24-105 for it and later sold 35/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4 because they were made redundant.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

<p dir="ltr">As it is not in your budget my recommendation to you is to get the 40D instead of the 50D. IMHO the difference between this lens to other lenses is greater than the difference between the two cameras.<br>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Going full circle...</p>

<p>The 17-40L would of course produce very fine images with a 50D plus it's built like a tank and handles like a dream. It's certainly not a bad choice but it's not the flexible tool that some of the other suggestions are.</p>

<p>I have a 50D but if I had $1000 right now to buy a lens in that range I'm not sure which I'd choose. I'm still leaning toward the L but the experts (o.k. G. Dan and the fellows above anyway) all say that the EF-s 17-55/2.8 IS is the way to go.</p>

[markonestudios]

If you plan to switch to full-frame soon, don't need f/2.8, don't want the hassle of trying to remarket a lens, I'd say get the 17-40L. If all the above applies, get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8