Lenses under 100mm

[asta_tobiassen]

<p>I have a 40d, 100mm and 100-400mm that I am very happy with. I also have the 17-85 kit lens. I am quite a generalist when it comes to photography. I love wildlife, landscape and macro, but I am also generally the one in the family doing the indoor stuff too. The 17-85 has been a descent walk-about lens, but I want wider angle for landscape and something faster for indoors. My thoughts:<br>

Keep 17-85 and add 10-22, w/ 50 1.4<br>

Sell 17-85 get 10-22, 24-105 w/ 50 1.8<br>

Sell 17-85 get 10-22 and 17-55<br>

Sell 17-85 get 10-22 and 24-70<br>

I do a lot of photography when I travel, so keeping the number of lenses and weight down is important to me. I would like to keep my budget around 2K or less.<br>

I appreciate your thoughts...</p>

[mark_ethridge]

<p>Well, your first option is probably the cheapest and if you like your 17-85, then there's a good argument for keeping it and going this route. I have the 10-22 and it's really a nice lens. </p>

<p>Your second option is my lens lineup (minus the 100mm and add the EF-S 60). For me, it's perfect. I tend to shoot in the longer range and I really like the 24-105 for most of my shooting. Others prefer wider on the wide end or a faster lens for their walk around, but not me. I can't comment on the 17-55 or the 24-70 because I haven't used them.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>For indoor family shooting on a crop body, either the 24-70 or the 50/1.4 would be an excellent choice. It's just a matter of whether you want the versatility of the zoom, or the greater speed, much lighter weight, and slightly better image quality of the prime.</p>

<p>I have heard that the 10-22 is an excellent lens, but since I use only full frame bodies I've never had the opportunity to try it. The 24-105 is my standard walkabout lens, but apparently it isn't optimal on crop bodies.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>If your really after a wider angle for landscape I would add a 10-22. Its a great lens if you like the ultra wide angle. If you want to go just a little wider in a 1 lens solution you may want to consider the new 15-85 which is getting pretty good reviews and is a direct upgrade to your 17-85.<br>

<br /> The 24-105 + 10-22 was my setup on a 40D for about a year and it worked pretty well til I moved to full frame. I would prefer a lens that covers a standard zoom range over switching right in the middle meaning keeping the 17-85 or replacing it with a 17-55, 15-85 etc.<br>

<br /> Maybe you can explain more about what you feel the 17-85 is lacking, its it working for you keep it and just ad the UW the 10-22 is a great lens. Maybe consider a flash unit if you do not already have one.</p>

[bengt_rehn]

<p>The combination 10-22 and either 24-105 or 24-70 is a perfect match on paper, but for most people a 24-XXX is not a good walk about lens on a cropped size body like the Canon 40D. The lack of wideangle will likely be frustrating and you have to carry the 10-22 with you most of the time. Be prepared to swap lenses often in that case.</p>

<p>However there are people who like the combination very much. The EF 50/1,8 make sense as portrait lens and a general fast and sharp short tele lens. It is so cheep that its worth to add to almost everyone. But as a general low light lens, 50mm is too long, especially indoors. Its difficult to capture groups of people and when you can the perspective will not be the best.</p>

<p>Before you pay for a 50/1,4, consider the use of that focal length. In my opinion a slightly slower 28/1,8 or 35/2,0 is a better way to spend that money. Then there is the extraordinary Sigma 30/1,4 EX HSM.</p>

<p>I would consider to keep the 17-85 for its exellent range and add 10-22, Sigma 30/1,4 and EF 50/1,8. Later on I would try to change the 17-85 to the new and better 15-85 IS.</p>

<p>If you did have a telezoom from 70-XXX, I would get the 17-55 instead, but I think the step between 55 and 100 is just too big to stay uncovered.</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>I would buy the 10-22. I would use that with your 17-85 for a while to see how that combination works for you. Then take a look at the focal lengths you prefer. If you use 50-85 frequently then the 24-105 would be a good choice. If you don't take much between 50 and 100 then the 17-55 would be a good choice. Also consider the gap between 22 and 24. If this doesn't bother you then keep the 24-105 and 24-70 as an option. However if you take a lot of photos around 22 and 24 then I would get a lens that will overlap like the 17-55.</p>

<p>For your fast lenses I would follow Bengt's advice and consider other focal lengths then 50mm. Again your 17-85mm lens and past photos taken with it can guide you on that.</p>

<p>If weight is an issue the 24-70 (2.1 lbs) is going to be an issue. The 17-55 and 24-105 are both about 1/2 lb lighter and both have IS which many people prefer.</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Well, this is a tough one. Lots of folks who post possible lens choices here make it easy by posting a bunch of inappropriate choices along with one or two good choices, but you certainly look like you've done your homework: all of the options you suggest are rather good.</p>

 

<p>One thing I'd note is that while a fast prime is great for low-light shooting, "indoor" usually means a variety of different-sized confined spaces, and a zoom offers a great deal more flexibility. As well, since you're using a 1.6-crop body, 50mm is too long for a lot of indoor uses. Heck, back in the film days, 50mm was sometimes too long in smaller rooms. So for me, unless you have a basket of various primes to suit various room sizes, zooms are a better fit for general-purpose indoor shooting. If you're going to go for a prime, look for something wider than 50: you can always crop the image if the lens was a bit too wide, but if your back's up against the back wall of the room and the lens is still too long, you're out of luck.</p>

 

<p>Regarding the 50/1.4 specifically, there's a fair bit of variability in opinions, but my copy of this lens behaves in a reasonably similar fashion to many other folks' copies: unacceptably soft wide open, much better at f/2, very sharp from f/2.8 onward (and I don't bother with it if I'm going to stop down beyond about f/8; I have high-end zooms, and beyond about f/8, there's not much difference). I don't know what the 17-85's maximum aperture is at 50, but I'm guessing it's about f/4.5, so the 50 gains you a couple of stops. If your subject won't hold still, that could definitely save the day. If the subject is stationary, this gets you shallower DOF and better background blur, but does nothing for handholding, because you're giving up 2-3 stops worth of IS; the 17-85 is at least as good for handholding in this case.</p>

 

<p>I haven't paid that much attention to the 50/1.8. I suspect that at equal apertures the 50/1.4 is probably slightly better, at least at larger apertures where the 50/1.4 is stopped down slightly more from wide open and therefore probably closer to its sweet spot. So the same comment likely applies: better than the 17-85 for freezing motion, but no better and possibly a bit worse for handholding.</p>

 

<p>The 24-105 is definitely an upgrade optically. I upgraded from the 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM, which is generally regarded as being fairly comparable to the 17-85, to the 24-105, and there's no question that the 24-105 is better. There isn't a huge speed difference between the 17-85 and 24-105, though, particularly around the middle of the 17-85's range, so it doesn't help with the "too slow" problem.</p>

 

<p>The 17-55 is, optically, comparable to the L lenses (mine is at least as good as the 17-40/4L USM that I traded for it, and holds its own against the 24-105 as well). The extra stop relative to the 24-105 could be very handy. The only hesitation I have about this is that you don't have anything between 55 and 100. That's a pretty significant gap. If the gap isn't a problem for you, then for me this is the best option.</p>

 

<p>The 24-70 is well known for being an excellent lens. But it's a lot like one of the 50 primes in that its faster aperture will help you freeze motion, but its lack of IS means that the 17-85 is at least its equal for avoiding handheld blur.</p>

 

<p>I hope something in there is useful to you.</p>

[bengt_rehn]

<p>Thou I dont understand the logic of Steve Dunn´s first part, he made a very good point in the usability of a stabilised zoom indoors oposed to a relative long unstabilased prime lens. As he said, even a 50mm lens in the film days ( read full frame sensors) is often too long indoors. I agree on that.</p>

<p>Its the Achilles heal for cropped sensors, there are virtually no fast widangle primes for cropped sensors at a reasonable price. I also agree that its useless to use a fast prime wide open if its not good enough. The Sigma 30/1,4 is actually usable at 1,4 with good center sharpness and contrast, but its still just a normal lens on cropped format. There is another benefit with using a fast prime with flash indoors, in that you can get in more ambident background light without using extensive long shutter speeds.</p>

<p>The 17-55 2,8 IS is the best lens aviable in that range and give you about one stop more. You can stay with this and the 10-22 for a while and dont bother with primes. Then later on get a EOS 7D ( new or used) and you will get another 1,5 stops in low light ability ( due to lower noise at high ISO´s).</p>

<p>If you find the gap between 55 and 100 is too painful, you could sell your 100mm macro and buy the Sigma 70/2,8 macro instead. The Sigma is every bit as sharp as the Canon lens and it dubbles as a nice head and shulder portrait lens as well.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Check out the new 15-85.</p>