Canon Lens - Cann't decide

[whtyger97]

I'm trying to decide between these two lens. I have the kit lens, a 1.8 50mm and an off brand telephoto, I don't know the specs on. I love the 50mm and use it all the time, mostly because I love not needing a flash for indoor shots, but it just doesn't go back far enough. Can anyone help with opinions on either of these two lens?

Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM

Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

Thanks,

 

[Master Mason]

I don't know anything about the first one but everything I have read on the second it is a very good lens.

 

[Code]

I'm like you, I love ambient light indoor shooting and most of my family's get-togethers are in the evening so my 30mm f/1.4 gets a lot of use.

Don't know anything about the lenses specifically, but that's a tough decision based on specs.. 1 1/3 stops is pretty significant for indoor shooting, but the zoom has IS which may or may not make up for the speed. Twice the price on the zoom, though. Tough one...

 

[DueyDooDah]

I'd go withtthe 17-55mm. It gives you more flexibility and is rated better than the 28mm (if that really matters). I've found that going to a faster lens (the 1.8 in this case) is a little tougher to get a good photo, due to the shallow depth of field you can achieve. I have a love/hate relationship with my 50mm 1.4 for just this reason.

 

[AndrewWG]

Ok, if you have the budget for the 17-55 f2.8, how about I throw a little kink in the plan and ask why not think about the Canon 24mm f1.4 L? It is L glass so you know the quality is top notch. The 24mm is half of the 50mm so you wouldn't have to be so confined to the distance issue that the 50mm gives you. Also, the f1.4 would be what you want in a low light lens. The price is also only about $125-150 more than the 17-55mm f2.8. I need to look into this lens much more as it is certainly one that I am considering. I may even try to rent it first to see if it is what I really want.

 

[whtyger97]

Thanks for the advise.

I'm leaning towards the 17-55mm f2.8. Thats the lens my dh picked out for me, he thinks i'm silly not get a lens with IS.

I picked out the other one because its less then half the price and would (I think) still get me the kind of pictures I want. I know the love/hate with depth of field and my DH thinks I'd get better shots with the 2.8 because of the IS.

Its just a whole lot of money to spend on a lens (for us), so I'm really nervous still. I don't want to make the wrong decision, we tried to go to a local camera place (Dodd if anyone cares) to try the lens out, but the only one they had in stock was on the other side of the state, a four hour drive. The camera store recommended some other brand that was a simular but didn't have IS. (albiet at half the price).

 

[AndrewWG]

Thanks for the advise.

I'm leaning towards the 17-55mm f2.8. Thats the lens my dh picked out for me, he thinks i'm silly not get a lens with IS.

I picked out the other one because its less then half the price and would (I think) still get me the kind of pictures I want. I know the love/hate with depth of field and my DH thinks I'd get better shots with the 2.8 because of the IS.

Its just a whole lot of money to spend on a lens (for us), so I'm really nervous still. I don't want to make the wrong decision, we tried to go to a local camera place (Dodd if anyone cares) to try the lens out, but the only one they had in stock was on the other side of the state, a four hour drive. The camera store recommended some other brand that was a simular but didn't have IS. (albiet at half the price).

Well, I am not sure what the others will have to say here but I have to say that the IS on a 17-55mm lens that has the ability to go to f2.8 seems a bit redundant. You should almost always have fast enough shutter speeds that camera shake won't be a big concern. If I am thinking about this correctly, that would render the IS somewhat useless. I shot alot of my pics on this past vacation with my 17-85mm and didn't realize that the IS was off for many of the pics. I never noticed a difference.

Perhaps someone else can explain this better or correct me if I'm wrong about this.

 

[jann1033]

Thanks for the advise.

I'm leaning towards the 17-55mm f2.8. Thats the lens my dh picked out for me, he thinks i'm silly not get a lens with IS.

I picked out the other one because its less then half the price and would (I think) still get me the kind of pictures I want. I know the love/hate with depth of field and my DH thinks I'd get better shots with the 2.8 because of the IS.

Its just a whole lot of money to spend on a lens (for us), so I'm really nervous still. I don't want to make the wrong decision, we tried to go to a local camera place (Dodd if anyone cares) to try the lens out, but the only one they had in stock was on the other side of the state, a four hour drive. The camera store recommended some other brand that was a simular but didn't have IS. (albiet at half the price).

i live east of cleveland and our local dodd will have something sent out to your local store to try it or if you are sure you want it( ie they did that for my nd filter). you might want to try that so you can see it first.

have you considered the 28-70...not is but supposed to be a good lens and it would give you a little more freedom as far as focal length if you are less than happy with you telephoto... i think tamron makes one in around that length that lots like, canon's is about 1000+ i think and i think mickey 88 has one that is similar from tokina he likes... that way you would have your wider angle but longer focal length as well

you know andy i wondered about that as well, i mean if you can't hold it steady at 50or less mm and f2.8, get a tripod and take it everywhere you go, even I can do that usually but a few who know what they are talking about said it was still worth it( although i can't remember the reasoning right now). and i did use my is on my 28-135 even at 28 ( i basically never turn it off since i wouldn't remember to turn it back on)

 

[Oogie-Boogie]

The 17-55 gets universally praised on most photog forums. It's considered one of the best Canon lenses, along with the 70-200 f2.8is. The IS really does help offset the f-stop difference, and is rated at giving 3 stops worth of extra room to play with for shutter speed and iso, and shooting at anything under f3 is going to force you into having a very shallow depth of field.

If you like close ups with a very shallow plane of focus and lots of background blur, then you'll want something like the Sigma 30mm f1.4. But for walk-around shots in interiors and low light, the 17-55is simply can't be beat. There's a reason it's selling well, even at the high cost.

One option you might want to try is renting it. I couldn't justify the cost for it myself this xmas, having just upgraded to the 40d with my piggybank, and decided just to rent the lens for the month of december. The rental's just over $100 for the month with insurance, and I'll be using it on our trip to WDW next week! There's a handful of decent lens rental places online. I'm going with lensrentals.com, but this'll be my first time using them, so I can't give any feedback yet.

Good luck!