Need an all around L lens with 50D

[shawn_nguyen]

<p>Hello all, I bought a canon 50d + 28-135mm lens as a combo kit a month ago and a few days ago I purchased a canon speedlite 430EX II as an external flash, my built-in flash did not justify the pictures I took outdoor with shadow and shaded area. I love to take landscape, portrait, and family vacations, plus I want to take up close with blur background. I find that my 28-135 lens are limited while taking picture at closeup. I read a lot of reviews regarding 17-40mm and 24-70mm lenses but I'm still didn't know which one fit my scenario. <br /> <br /> any help? <br /> <br /> Thank in advance. <br /> <br /> Shawn</p>

[shambrick007]

<p>"17-40mm and 24-70mm", " landscape, portrait" - You'll need both IMHO. 24mm is to tight for landscapes, and 40 too short for portraits. </p>

[pauloriskas]

<p>Shawn, if you have the 28-135 it make sense to get the 17-40. The 24-70 overlaps the 28-135.</p>

[jeff_bubis]

<p>If you've got a 50D, I think the best lens for the money would be the 17-55/f2.8. Not only is it without an equal amongst EF lenses, it's got IQ that is at least as good as the L and also has IS. Unless you know you'll go FF or need the weather sealing (or the red ring), you won't be able to beat it.</p>

[geoffs1]

<p>Another vote for the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>The last two recs sound good, I'd still recommend myself to you the 24-70 2.8L lens for tops in all-around.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I bought my 24-70L lens about 5 years ago, it is selling for more then I paid for it on ebay. The L lens maintain their value very well. For Crop the 17-55 EP-S will probably be better.</p>

[hjoseph7]

The 24-70 is a very heavy lens, it is a great lens no doubt about it but too heavy and too expensive for evryday use. If you want a walk around lens, I would go with the 24-105mm, the 17-40, or the 17-55. Just my personal opinion, I would go with the 17-40mm, because if you ever decide to go FF that lens will fit while the 17-55 wont. Plus it's a little more dicrete than the 24-105. I use a 28-105mm as my everyday lens($225) it takes sharp pictures and has a decent range.

[steven_f1]

<blockquote>

<p>I love to take landscape, portrait, and family vacations, plus I want to take up close with blur background. I find that my 28-135 lens are limited while taking picture at closeup.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Could you post and example picture of how it didn't come out? If you didn't get a good blurred background it could be with how the exposure was set up. What was the exposure? What mode were you (Av, Tv, M, Auto)? </p>

<p>Or If you couldn't get close enough to a small subject it could mean that you need a macro lens. None of the lenses mentioned above are macros. Again a sample picture of you problem would help. </p>

[chris_clarke3]

<p>Either the 17-40 or the 16-35 II.</p>

[chris_koffend]

<p>My problem with the 17-55 is that it is a limiting lens that if you really get into photography and move to a full frame camera, will leave you high and dry. I started with a crop and am moving toward FF. I have only purchased one S lens and try to avoid them as they become useless with a FF body. But, if you think you will not leave the crop camera, then this is a good lens. Also, perhaps you want to try shooting in aperture priority (AV) when you are shooting with a flash. It sounds like this is as much of the problem as the lens itself, based on your statements. The 28-135 is actually a pretty decent lens and you should be able to get pretty good results with it. I would also consider the following two lens combo for your crop camera: 17-35 L 2.8 (about $675 on eBay) + 50 mm 1.4 about $325 or less used ($1000 combined). You will love the 50 1.4, it is a terrific lens on a crop body for portrait like shots and is great is low light.</p>

[jeff_bubis]

<p>I'm tired of people making statements regarding growing in photography and moving to FF. The reality is that EF-S isn't going anywhere - and that was proven with the introduction of the 7D. Furthermore, the 17-55 has held its value well (check Ebay). Ultimately, if you're "really" into photography, you're likely to have two bodies - 1 FF and 1 APS-C; and if that's the case, you'll likely keep using the 17-55. If you don't you will be able to sell it for an excellent price based on the current market. That being said, the 24mm is (in my experience) not wide enough on an APS-C body. Finally, I come back to the IS issue... I really wish (and I know I'm not alone in this) that Canon would make an EF equivalent L lens with IS, but the 17-55 has been out for about 3 years now and they have yet to do this. Go to a local photography store and try the lenses you're considering on your body or rent them. That will give you your answer.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I think that you can be "into photography" and be using either format (or neither, for that matter: witness all of those such as myself who are still using film bodies). Because I came over from film, there was never any chance of me getting an APS-C body. And I doubt that anyone would question that the IQ of the larger sensor is superior, all other things being equal. If it weren't, medium and large format photography would have died out long ago. But, having said that, there are great photographers who use full frame sensors, great photographers who use crop sensors, and great photographers who use both.</p>

<p>Great photography is the product of the photographer, not of the gear he or she uses.</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm tired of people making statements regarding growing in photography and moving to FF. The reality is that EF-S isn't going anywhere - and that was proven with the introduction of the 7D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I second this statement. The EF-S lenses are very nice, and the bodies are impressive as well. The 17-55 IS is about as good as it gets for a 50D.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>The new EF-s 15-85 might be perfect unless you need the speed.</p>

[markonestudios]

The Canon EF-S 17-55 IS or the Tamron 17-50 are both highly regarded, constant-max-aperture lenses. They would both hold their value well as they are still very good. I've only tried the Tamron equivalent on a Nikon dSLR and I was impressed.

<p>On another note, crop-sensor dSLRs are here to stay. The 7D is strong testimony to that. There will be many who "really get into photography" and will never feel the need to go full frame.

<p>That the 17-55 is considered a qualifying product to join the Canon Professional Network should give a hint as to its pedigree...

[chris_koffend]

<p>My comment about "really getting into photography" and progressing to FF is in no means a slight to crop bodies or their future. I own and love my 50D crop body and have no intentions of getting rid of it. The reality is that most people just "getting into" photography are going to start with a crop body - economics encourages this. Who wants to spend thousands of dollars on a camera body when they don't even know if they will love the hobby (that is why I started with a 50D and I used to shoot [years ago] film). The reality is that if one buys a S (crop body only) lens and then decides to move to FF (replacing!) their crop body, the lens is of no usable value and needs to be sold. I get the impression the S lens values will not hold up to the L series and similar lens values - but this is to be seen.<br>

I clearly stated that if the OP has no intentions to move to a FF body, then the S lens is a good lens and a good choice. To recommend anything in response to one seeking advice, and not including the details or weaknesses of your/my recommendation is the equivalent to providing bad information. Obviously the OP has less experience than many and along with any advise, in my opinion, the pros and cons should be included for the advice to be accurately analyzed by the Original Poster.<br>

I offered my suggestion based on 2 lenses (at roughly the same combined cost as the 17-55 S) and a review of his shooting technique to overcome his posted issues. The lenses that I recommended can be used on every Canon body (FF, crop 1.3, crop 1.6, 35 mm) and will likely hold there value (as history shows) extremely well. I clearly indicate that the S 17-55 lens is a very good lens, but won't work on all bodies (limited future protection if he moves to FF). Because any responder reminds posters (new to the hobby) that FF cameras exist and are frequently moved to over the course of the hobby and that such a move may be considered by the poster in helping to determine their short term needs/goals against long term needs/goals is responsible and is in no way criticising those making recommendation geared only toward crop cameras.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>So? EF lenses don't work on medium format bodies. Should we write disclaimers every time sometime asks for an EF lens, pointing out that they might get a Hasselblad or Toyo at some point in the future?</p>

<p>Buying photo gear is not like marriage. It's not forever until death do us part. If you decide to switch formats you just sell your old gear. No big deal.</p>

<p>IMO buying a FF ultrawide as a standard zoom for crop is kinda like buying a pickup truck to get groceries, thinking you might become a building contractor at some distant point in the future. It'll get you there, but most folks are better served with a sedan.</p>

<p>Anyways, I'll get off of my soapbox now. <em>I love to take landscape, portrait, and family vacations, plus I want to take up close with blur background. </em> I suggest 17-55/2.8 IS, and start thinking/saving for a macro prime like 100/2.8. An f/2.8 zoom like 17-55 plus a speedlite is the ticket for great family photos.</p>

 

[chris_koffend]

<p>Grocery shopping to home building, hum? How about you have a 2,500 pound boat and the lake that you like to go to is ten miles away on flat highways and has a great, grooved concrete boat landing. Somebody recommends that you get a minivan to tow the boat, as the minivan is rated at 3,000 pound towing capacity. You are well served by this minivan going to the perfect boat landing and driving down the flat highway. </p>

<p>However, should you ever want to go to a different lake with a sand or dirt, inclined boat landing, maybe up in the mountains, then you are SOL, you may be able to get to the boat landing, if you get there, you can get your boat in the water, but you can't get it out! The minivan is just not able to do this in many circumstances. Nobody warned you in advance that this was the problem with getting the minivan upfront (after all, it could do what you said you wanted it to) for towing your boat. If they had told you this, you would have at least had the opportunity to consider what your needs are, what the impact is if your needs change and what you can and cannot do with the recommended product.</p>

<p>Personally, I wouldn't buy an S Series lens if I could buy a regular EF lens that gave me the rough equivalent on a crop body. That being said, I do own a 10-22 mm S lens and was forced to buy a second wide angle lens for my FF (17-35 2.8 L). But those buying decisions were purely based on the idea that I may someday move to a FF camera body.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>I don't have a 2500 pound boat. Most folks don't. I don't plan on getting one. That's the difference, you see.</p>

[chris_koffend]

<p>No obviously not, the issue isn't the boat, the issue is the vehicle to carry the boat. The vehicle equates to the lens. The lens/vehicle can be addressed for the current need with complete ignorance to any future need (as with the minivan above). There is nothing wrong with buying the minivan/or the limited S lens - as long as the buyer understands the limitations both purchases pose for future/changing needs. If this is considered and they determine that the future needs will not depart from the current needs OR that if they do, they are happy re-buying in the future, then they have made an educated, thought out decision. In doing so, the right decision has been made for that individuals need.</p>

<p>Choosing to be ignorant with regard to any future/changing needs is just being blind. Considering the limitations is just part of incorporating a good decision making process, whether for an individual, a business, a family. We (hopefully) all do this as part of our daily lives in many things we do; life insurance coverage, eating out, where we will educate our kids, the automobiles we drive, etc. . . Every decision we make has pros and cons, trade-offs and alternative options. Some are so meaningless or minor that little effort or thought goes into them, others warrant closer evaluation and some warrant significant consideration (buying a home, getting married, major career decisions).</p>

<p>I own a company that manufacturers and supplies equipment to the optical disc industry (if you have a DVD disc in your house odds are 9:1 that our equipment was used in its manufacture). Nearly every company that buys our equipment asks abouts its ability to perform in scenarios that exceed the capability of current production lines available in the market/industry today (which our equipment does when special options are added which slightly increases the initial cost). Not because they have an immediate need for our equipment to meet what may be a future need, but they know they are making a better, well rounded decision by safe guarding for that future possibility.</p>

<p>Shawn should consider the potential for her/him to go to a full frame camera at some point in the future. If s/he thinks this is very unlikely, s/he can make her/his decision accordingly. If s/he is unsure or thinks s/he will, then s/he can act accordingly. Regardless, it should be considered!</p>

<p>Finally, the statement that the S-lenses will hold their value as well as the L-lenses, the very short history has already shown this is not the case. In many regards we are talking about lenses that are less than 3 years since introduction. This is even more true with the "off-brand" lenses.</p>

[anov]

<p>Chris: How much did you spend on that 17-35mm f/2.8? That lens used to be THE wide zoom to get in the Canon lines. I think it was priced at $1250 when new in mid 90's. I bought one last April for $500. It's a fine lens, but has issues that's why it's been upgraded twice by Canon.<br>

Your 10-22mm depreciation is about the same as the 17-40mm L lens, so people traded those lens all the time. Same with 17-55 and the 24-105mm.<br>

As for the OP, I would recommend the EF-S 17-55mm IS.</p>

 

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p><em>Finally, the statement that the S-lenses will hold their value as well as the L-lenses, the very short history has already shown this is not the case.</em></p>

<p>Completely false and misleading. 17-55s hold their value very well, comparable to L glass. Have a look at keh.com listings, craislist asking prices, completed ebay sales.</p>

<p>I think there's nothing wrong telling people that an EF-S lens won't fit a full-frame camera. Or that a Camry won't tow a 2500 pound boat. But I think it's bad advice to scare people into think that crop won't hold value or that crop is going obsolete in the near future.</p>

[chris_parker9]

<p>I bought my 17-55 2.8 about 18 months ago for about 910.00. I can sell it right now for 825.00-875.00. Not a bad value IMO</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>Avoiding the squabbling, the 24-70L is a nice lens on a 50D. I like the range it covers, and the image quality is nice. Heavy and built like a tank, it might give me pause if I were about to go mountain climbing, but for most day's wanderings it's not too heavy.<br>

I think the suggestion for the 20-105L is also one to consider... I sometimes find that the 70mm isn't quite enough reach to suit me, and keep considering adding one to the pile of goodies. And I keep the 17-40L on my 5D to accompany me on my wanders, giving a nice, handy coverage for most things. Honestly, I didn't care for the 17-40L on the 50D, not that there was anything wrong with the coverage, just that it still wasn't wide enough, and was better suited on the 5D to complement the 50D with the 24-70L. Am I making sense?</p>