canon 60d lens question

[nvtsallo]

I can either go to disney with the 15-85mm efs or 24-105l ef. I am concerned about low light performance but am worried the 24 will actually be around 38mm on this camera and may not be wide enough. Any suggestions. i will also have the 18-135mm efs but I am not very happy with it. I am just not sure the which way to go and the 17-55mm has mixed reviews or I would go with that. Please help.

 

[boBQuincy]

I carry a 24-105 on a crop camera a my walkaround lens and yes, it is sometimes not wide enough. So I also usually carry a 10-22.
If the 15-85 was available when I bought the 24-105 I might have gone 15-85 instead. The difference between 85 and 105 is not great but the difference between 24 and 15 is a lot!

Mom2rtk uses a 17-55 with excellent results and about the only negative I can see with it is the price (and early ones had a dust entry issue).

 

[nvtsallo]

I have the chance to either replace my broken 15-85mm for my upcoming wdw trip or get the 24-105 and pay $400 more or keep my 15-85mm and rent the 17-55mm or do nothing and go with my 15-85mm. I was just out shooting in low light for haloween and the iso sat at 3200 and even then some where too dark. I am concerned about indoor character greetings and breakfasts. Any help would be appreciated. I do have the 270 ex ii also but it is so harsh on the subjects.

 

[mom2rtk]

I have the chance to either replace my broken 15-85mm for my upcoming wdw trip or get the 24-105 and pay $400 more or keep my 15-85mm and rent the 17-55mm or do nothing and go with my 15-85mm. I was just out shooting in low light for haloween and the iso sat at 3200 and even then some where too dark. I am concerned about indoor character greetings and breakfasts. Any help would be appreciated. I do have the 270 ex ii also but it is so harsh on the subjects.

How are you approaching your flash photos? I'm by no means an expert but feel like I've made some progress lately. You really do need the flash for indoor character meets and meals. Can you post some of the flash photos you are not happy with?

I've been reading Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Flash Photography" and feel like I'm finally starting to understand. Really though, my T2i does pretty well just in program mode with me choosing the ISO and adjusting the flash strength with the flash exposure compensation. I've been far happier with it since I started dialing down the strength with the FEC.

The lens choice is tough. I've never been too keen on renting just becuase I feel like I don't get to keep any value out of it when it's all over. But if it helps you decide which direction to go later, it might be worthwhile.

How important is it to you to have strong low light performance? Maybe you want to get an all-purpose walk-around like the Tamron 18-270 so you have the range covered. The down side of course is that it won't do the dark rides well.

 

[photo_chick]

For character meals I tend to use a fast prime. My walkaround lens at Disney is my trusty 28-105 (I shoot crop). The range is great for me and when it dies I will get the 24-105 f/4. For how I shoot 28mm is wide enough as walkaround 99.9% of the time. But we're all different.

 

[mom2rtk]

I carry a 24-105 on a crop camera a my walkaround lens and yes, it is sometimes not wide enough. So I also usually carry a 10-22.
If the 15-85 was available when I bought the 24-105 I might have gone 15-85 instead. The difference between 85 and 105 is not great but the difference between 24 and 15 is a lot!

Mom2rtk uses a 17-55 with excellent results and about the only negative I can see with it is the price (and early ones had a dust entry issue).

Many thanks Bob! I do love that lens to bits. It's a constant 2.8 and on the cameras with higher ISO, I am hardly ever left wanting. I even got some shots on Haunted Mansion with the 2.8 that I liked because the camera does so well at the higher ISO's. I have the T2i, which I think has a similar sensor to the 60D????? If you add Lightroom3's noise reduction, you're really in good shape.

I do get frustrated that 55 is not long enough for some things I want. But I will always sacrifice some on the long end to have something fairly wide available to me, especially at Disney. Much of that is personal preference, as there are many here who shoot with 24 or 28 as their widest length and are happy as can be. But it just seems to me that at Disney, by the time you back up to widen with your feet, people tend to fill that space between you and your subject.

 

[nvtsallo]

So are you saying to go and try using my 15-85 and work with the 270 indoors. My worry about the 24-105l is the wide angle. I shot last year with a t2i and the 18-200 efs. I was just hoping to go with slightly better gear. I am still unsure if the 18-135 will be enough reach for some of the shows or if i should get the 70-300mm usm for that. I don't want to spend the whole trip taking pictures. As for dark rides i would have gotten the 50mm 1.4 but its been on back order and will not be able to get it in time. I was just unsure if the extra stop of light would avoid me having to use a flash indoors but it sounds like thats not going to help.

 

[Bstanley]

the 17-55mm has mixed reviews

I am concerned about low light performance

The Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS is expensive and hefty (22.6 oz, the kit 18-55mm for example is only 7oz), but optically speaking it is The Bomb. It actually outperforms several L lenses in a couple of optical measures - but it is only for use with Crop Sensors so it isn't totally fair to compare...

The 60D (I just got mine about 10 days ago) and the 17-55 seem to be made for each other regarding low light. I am absolutely looking forward to trying for the elusive Dark Ride shots during our upcoming visit to The World - first because I've gained 4 stops over last trip where I was using a Rebel XS and the kit 18-55 lens, and second because I've seen the 60D/f2.8 combo focus without hesitation in very low light conditions where the Rebel and kit lens struggled.

I'm still going to take my 50mm f1.8 and try it in the Dark Rides too, but I really anticipate the best low light shots will come from the 17-55.

 

[nvtsallo]

so you think it's worth getting rid of my 15-85 and getting the 17-55 and losing range for nearly double the price? my 15-85 is $710 or I would pay $1100 or so for the 17-55. That is quite a bit more and I need to keep it for the holidays and going forward so want to make sure that it is worth it for the extra stop. say i'm taking a pic at f3.5 with shutter 1/80 and iso 800 would the 2.8 allow for those same settings but 1/125 or 1/160?

 

[photo_chick]

so you think it's worth getting rid of my 15-85 and getting the 17-55 and losing range for nearly double the price? my 15-85 is $710 or I would pay $1100 or so for the 17-55. That is quite a bit more and I need to keep it for the holidays and going forward so want to make sure that it is worth it for the extra stop. say i'm taking a pic at f3.5 with shutter 1/80 and iso 800 would the 2.8 allow for those same settings but 1/125 or 1/160?

Only you can answer the question of worth here. Is it worth it to you? It's not just another stop at the wide end. The 17-55 f/2.8 is f/2.8 throughout the focal range, so you're gaining more than that on the long end.

For me, no, it's not worth the price tag at this point in time because I'm well covered in that focal range already and don't feel like I need the f/2.8 and I prefer more range in my walkaround lens. But for someone else it may very well be worth it and might be what they really want. It's not a question anyone can answer for you. My advice is if you're not sure what you want don't buy. Otherwise you'll most likely end up second guessing that purchase for a long time.

 

[mplindsay1]

For me, the 17-55 was definitely worth the money. I've had it for several years and wouldn't be without it. Another option (that will cost you a couple hundred bucks more than the 17-55) is the 24-70 f2.8 L. It is heavier than the 17-55 and doesn't have IS but it gives you more reach and is an excellent lens. I've come to the conclusion that it's worth it to me to pay the extra and get the best glass I can... But that's just my opinion (of course lol).

 

[Bstanley]

so you think it's worth getting rid of my 15-85 and getting the 17-55 and losing range for nearly double the price?

You know - I personally think that folks who spend $15K on a Bass boat have questionable judgement - those same folks tell me that spending $5K on a Disney vacation is crazy. Only you truly know the state of your checkbook and your requirements.

I've used the 17-55 with a Rebel XS (10MPx) for about 7 months and I never thought while shooting - I really wish I could zoom a bit farther - but you know when I was using the kit 18-55 at the long end there were plenty of times I wished I had more light or that the focus would lock on so I could take the shot. Now that I have the 60D and it's 18MPx I REALLY doubt I'll ever miss having more zoom - I'll just crop a bit. Coupled with the marked improvement in focusing (how much of the improvement is the 60D and how much is the f2.8 of the lens I don't actually know - but I do know that Canon specifically states that their focusing systems work better in low light with f2.8 or faster lenses).

In all candor now that I've used an across the board f2.8 lens - if the Canon 17-55 devours too much of someone's photo budget (and I agree it's expensive) I would recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (based on other people's reviews) rather than going back to any f3.5-f5.6 lens.

PS (added later) - keep an eye on Adorama - I bought my 17-55 from them - Refurbished (one year warranty from Adorama) for $934(? something like that anyway).

 

[mom2rtk]

You know - I personally think that folks who spend $15K on a Bass boat have questionable judgement - those same folks tell me that spending $5K on a Disney vacation is crazy. Only you truly know the state of your checkbook and your requirements.

I've used the 17-55 with a Rebel XS (10MPx) for about 7 months and I never thought while shooting - I really wish I could zoom a bit farther - but you know when I was using the kit 18-55 at the long end there were plenty of times I wished I had more light or that the focus would lock on so I could take the shot. Now that I have the 60D and it's 18MPx I REALLY doubt I'll ever miss having more zoom - I'll just crop a bit. Coupled with the marked improvement in focusing (how much of the improvement is the 60D and how much is the f2.8 of the lens I don't actually know - but I do know that Canon specifically states that their focusing systems work better in low light with f2.8 or faster lenses).

In all candor now that I've used an across the board f2.8 lens - if the Canon 17-55 devours too much of someone's photo budget (and I agree it's expensive) I would recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (based on other people's reviews) rather than going back to any f3.5-f5.6 lens.

PS (added later) - keep an eye on Adorama - I bought my 17-55 from them - Refurbished (one year warranty from Adorama) for $934(? something like that anyway).

I agree with all of this. Of course, it's far easier to spend someone ELSE's money than your own, but I still agree. Once you've used the 2.8's, it's really hard to go back. They just give so much more flexibility and most offer a higher image quality.

If you don't want to drop what it takes for the Canon, then I'd go with the Tamron without stabilization. If you're ok with the loud focus motor (and many here have been very happy with that lens) then I think you'll be very happy with it.

I just think that unless money is super tight, it's a good thing to step up your game when you have to replace something. That way you feel like that, in spite of having to fork over more $$$, you're at least moving the ball forward. Otherwise you could spend the cash and get a replacement, but a few months from now be kicking yourself for not spending more to get the 2.8 you now want. Or maybe that's just how it always goes for me.

 

[bob100]

I can either go to disney with the 15-85mm efs or 24-105l ef. I am concerned about low light performance but am worried the 24 will actually be around 38mm on this camera and may not be wide enough. Any suggestions. i will also have the 18-135mm efs but I am not very happy with it. I am just not sure the which way to go and the 17-55mm has mixed reviews or I would go with that. Please help.

for a "walk around" I like the 17-50/55 f2.8 lens but why don't you like the 18-135? Many people think the 18-135 is a good lens for a crop model with the longer focal range

 

[nvtsallo]

I am going to use the 15-85mm and keep the 18-135mm as a backup but am unsure if I should get the 70-300mm for the show in front of the castle and the lights action motor stunt show or if the few photo ops are not worth the expense and a third lense? Any Suggestions?