Getting a new lens *FINALLY* now the question....which to get?

[katiekoester]

Hello all!
I am an official lurker, but now I'm FINALLY getting a new lens for my Canon 50D and I need opinions about which to get. I'm looking at the Canon 17-55 f2.8 or the Canon 24-70L f2.8. I don't think I will ever upgrade to a full-frame camera, but I might someday go to a 7d or whatever is similar in that far-away time. I already have a 18-55 kit lens and a 18-135 kit lens (both came with my camera) and someday I want to add a 70-200L f2.8 because my daughter's both dance and play soccer, but really what do I buy now???? Thanks for all your help!

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

What is the purpose of the new lens? What's your budget? Is there something you are trying to photograph that your current lens lineup cannot do?

 

[NLD]

If you won't ever go to full-frame, then I'd say get the 17-55... much more useful range on a crop-sensor.

That's based strictly on the focal length range though, I don't know anything about Canon lenses to know how they compare optically.

 

[photo_chick]

I shoot with a 50D with no plans to go full frame either. The 17-55 f/2.8 is up near the top of my list of lenses to get. I was set on the 24-105 L actually, because I love the focal range of my current 28-105, but lately I keep feeling the need to back up into the next county to get the shots I want. The 17-55 f/2.8 has L quality optics, too.

 

[katiekoester]

What is the purpose of the new lens? What's your budget? Is there something you are trying to photograph that your current lens lineup cannot do?

I want it for the ability to shoot in lower light conditions as my current 18-55 is a f4.0 (I think) and my budget is $1300 or so. I figure the $200 difference or so is not a big deal as long as I get a lenses that I will use regularly. I'm really trying hard to get to be a better photographer so that I can shoot my girls (they grow up SOOOO fast) and save some money on professional photographs (currently spending $200-$500 a year just on pics of the girls). I also want GREAT shots at Disney (and other vacation spots we have picked)

Papa just so you know I am a BIG fan!!!

 

[katiekoester]

I shoot with a 50D with no plans to go full frame either. The 17-55 f/2.8 is up near the top of my list of lenses to get. I was set on the 24-105 L actually, because I love the focal range of my current 28-105, but lately I keep feeling the need to back up into the next county to get the shots I want. The 17-55 f/2.8 has L quality optics, too.

Okay so now I'm curious.....what is the TOP of your list of lenses? It seems like we are in the same-ish boat and I'm always wondering what other things photographers like me have on their wish list (mostly so I can see if I want to add it to my wish list )

 

[Jalva22]

I posted almost the exact same question last week on a photography message board (except I included the Sigma 17-50 as well). I can link to the resulting discussion (tons of good advice), but I don't know if linking to another message board is good forum manners. PM me if you'd like a link to it.

I ended up going with the 17-55 over the 24-70, mainly because I was a little nervous about giving up image stabilization (which the 24-70 does not have). I also know that even f/2.8 may not be bright enough for general purpose family shots in a not-so-bright room, so I plan to add a flash with the money I saved by picking the 17-55 instead the 24-70.

You could also look at the Sigma 17-50, which is at least debatably the equal of the 17-55 and sells for less than $600 right now (including the hood; for the Canon on the other hand, you'll have to buy the hood separately). I almost bought that one a year or two ago, but ended up deciding to wait. There are tons of debates on the dedicated photography forums about whether or not the Sigma is the equal of the Canon. I felt a little safer with the Canon, so it was worth it to me to pay the premium to get it.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Hello all!
I am an official lurker, but now I'm FINALLY getting a new lens for my Canon 50D and I need opinions about which to get. I'm looking at the Canon 17-55 f2.8 or the Canon 24-70L f2.8. I don't think I will ever upgrade to a full-frame camera, but I might someday go to a 7d or whatever is similar in that far-away time. I already have a 18-55 kit lens and a 18-135 kit lens (both came with my camera) and someday I want to add a 70-200L f2.8 because my daughter's both dance and play soccer, but really what do I buy now???? Thanks for all your help!

I'm not a Canon shooter so I would have to rely on the reviews of others. At slrgear.com, the 24-70 gets better reviews, but both are very good. The question you have to ask yourself is, "Do I want extra length or wider?" I use a 28-70 f2.8 as my everyday lens. When I need something wider than the 28, I will use one of my 18-55 kit lenses. Others have found the 24 (or in my case 28) to not be wide enough for their style. For my style it works well. If your intent is to shoot soccer, you will definitely need something much longer than what we have discussed. I have two longer lenses that work for my style, a 70-200 f2.8 and a 100-300 f4. I very rarely (actually never) have had a need anything greater than the 300, but that's my style. Because of my access at the racetracks that I photograph there's just not the need. For one drag race evening, I actually shot most of it with an 18-55 kit. My next lens will be an UWA, something like 10-22/12-24. One thing I would recommend if you don't have one already, is an external flash.

 

[photo_chick]

Okay so now I'm curious.....what is the TOP of your list of lenses? It seems like we are in the same-ish boat and I'm always wondering what other things photographers like me have on their wish list (mostly so I can see if I want to add it to my wish list )

I've got quite a few more lenses in my bag than what you listed. The Samyang 8mm fisheye is my favorite toy in my bag.

The top of my list? I'm getting the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro as soon as the tax refund is deposited. While I'd love the L series version, I'm going non L on this one because I want the lens now, I want to get some scuba gear right now and my budget is only so big.

 

[Shutterbug]

I want it for the ability to shoot in lower light conditions as my current 18-55 is a f4.0 (I think) and my budget is $1300 or so.

Let me offer another option for you:

The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II Non-VC and the Canon 70-200L F4

The Tamron can be had for $414.00 after rebate
The Canon 70-200 F4 is $639.00

Total: $1053.00
That combo gives you both wide angle and telephoto zoom coverage.

I have the Tamron17-50 2.8 lens and I have been amazed about how sharp it is. I also have the Canon 70-200 f4. It was my first L lens and it is a great lens. Granted it does not have the low light capabilities of a 2.8 but it is half the price and lighter.

Just another option for ya.

 

[katiekoester]

thanks shutterbug for those suggestions!!! It looks like I may have to do more research trying to figure out if I "NEED" the f2.8 Oh for an unlimited budget so I could get them all

 

[Frantasmic]

IMO, unless your stage is very well lit, the 70-200 F4 lens might not get the shots your are looking for. It is a GREAT lens, but not necessarily the best for what you want to do. I use it for well-lit productions, but it does require good lighting.

The Tamron 17-50 Shutterbug mentions is a good deal if you want that focal range, but unless you ae ASSURED of getting close at all the dance events, you may not like the small pictures of your daughters if you are in the back of a performance.

I wrote this yesterday but for some reason it didn't post.

I'd go to the Refurbished by Canon section at Adorama and look at the 24-70 (around 1000 dollars) and the 85 f1.8 (around 350 dollars). The 85 is my go to lens for stage pictures and captures good images in low light. Another option is finding a used or refurbed 135 f2.0 which is a very good lens for stage and other low lighting events.

 

[HPS3]

Another great lens to look at is the Sigma 17-50 f2.8. It's really sharp and has stabilization. It costs around $650. For me, the 24 just wouldn't be wide enough especially indoors. I have a couple of Sigma lenses and can say I love them.

 

[alloyd1170]

Top of my list now is the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I shoot sports, so that is a priority for me. What I have:

Canon 10-22 for ultra wide and landscapes
Canon 24-105 f/4 (Christmas present), very sharp
Canon 50 f/1.4 rarely use as I like to get in close, fast in low light
Canon 100 macro
Canon 100-400 f/4.5 mainly for sports and zooming. Slow, but does the job
Tamron 18-270 f/3.5 walkaround lens and favorite up until I got the 24-105. Still is my fav, but I do like my 24-105 too!

I went back and forth on the 24-105 or the 17-55. I wanted the extra reach of the 24-105 since I like to zoom, but the f/2.8 is nice to have.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

If the OP is willing to use third party lenses, then that opens up all kinds of other possibilities. For example, a Sigma, image stablized, hyper-sonic motor 70-200 f2.8 is currently $1,400. That is considerably cheaper than the Canon version. I have four Sigma's and including the (non-IS since I have in-body stabilization) 70-200 f2.8 and enjoy each of them. I don't make my living by being a photographer, so if there is any significant differences in image quality, I can't see it in my images. To a pixel-peeper there maybe some, but I'm far from that!

 

[alloyd1170]

Thank you for that advice! I am going to check out the Sigma 70-200 now as that is a huge price difference. That's why I haven't gotten the Canon 70-200 yet. If the quality is very similar, it will be a selling point for me!

 

[mom2rtk]

OP, I shoot Canon and faced some similar decisions last year when I had a desire to upgrade lenses.

If you decide to go for the shorter lens now, here's my experience after a very detailed review of the options. I knew going into it that I like wide. I knew what I wanted was the best quality 2.8 walk-around lens I could get that went down to around 17 or 18mm. Just my style of shooting, especially at Disney, where if you back up to get your shot, 50 of your closest friends are willing to fill that space you just made.

So I was left looking for something in the 17-50ish range of better quality than my kit lens. The feedback I read indicated that the Tamron was very well reviewed and generally seen as a having better IQ than the Sigma. MANY here on this forum have the Tamron and love it as a nice sharp lens. I have unsteady hands though and REALLY wanted a lens with IS. Tamron makes a version, but is said to have lost some of that sharpness in the VC model. So I was back to looking at the non-VC version. The issue with that is that it has a pretty loud focus motor. Someone linked a youtube video for me to hear it......... and that was all it took. That dang focus motor would alert my teenagers to the camera's presence FAR too easily!

I ordered the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 soon after. It was hard to swallow the pricetag. But I have to tell you. I've had that lens for almost 2 years and have not had a second thought about it. It's on my camera 95% of the time. the IQ is exceptional and I'm very satisfied with the purchase.

My word of advice is this. Camera bodies come and go. Lenses can last through many bodies if well cared for. Get the best you can afford up front. The worst outcome would be for you to think you addressed THIS lens issue, only to find out a few months down the road that you wish you had just bit the bullet and gotten the one you want. The most expensive lens is the one you have to buy twice.

I'm doing a TR from our Dec 2011 trip linked in my TR below. Drop in and check out some of the photos. 95% of them were taken with that lens.

Best of luck. I hope you love what you get!

 

[katiekoester]

My word of advice is this. Camera bodies come and go. Lenses can last through many bodies if well cared for. Get the best you can afford up front. The worst outcome would be for you to think you addressed THIS lens issue, only to find out a few months down the road that you wish you had just bit the bullet and gotten the one you want. The most expensive lens is the one you have to buy twice.

I'm doing a TR from our Dec 2011 trip linked in my TR below. Drop in and check out some of the photos. 95% of them were taken with that lens.

Best of luck. I hope you love what you get!

Thanks mom2rtk! Your trip report from last year was what really got me thinking about upgrading and taking photography more serious! I love, love, love your trip reports! (where is an update btw, your killing me with suspense! ) I think it's official I'm going to just get the Canon lens as well as a 30-35 f1.4. Then it's back to saving and waiting until I can splurge on a 70-200 f2.8 which I will use for dance recitals/productions. Thanks everyone for all your help and know that I might not post a lot, but everyone here inspires me to be a better photographer every day!

 

[mom2rtk]

Thanks mom2rtk! Your trip report from last year was what really got me thinking about upgrading and taking photography more serious! I love, love, love your trip reports! (where is an update btw, your killing me with suspense! ) I think it's official I'm going to just get the Canon lens as well as a 30-35 f1.4. Then it's back to saving and waiting until I can splurge on a 70-200 f2.8 which I will use for dance recitals/productions. Thanks everyone for all your help and know that I might not post a lot, but everyone here inspires me to be a better photographer every day!

LOL! I just can't hide, can I??? I know I'm overdue for an update, but it was just a crazy week. Soon, I hope. And thanks for the kind words. I'm glad you're reading along. 1 day down.... only 9 more to go!

I am the ABSOLUTE WORST at second geussing myself. But I honestly have not second-guessed that lens from the day I bought it. The images I take with that lens just seem brighter and sharper than anything I take with any other lens. I think the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is close, but nothing else compares. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

I have given a lot of thought to a 70-200 f/2.8 but never pulled the trigger on that one. I ended up with a 50-150 f/2.8 (which is no longer available). I like the size and weight of that one a lot more than the others, but still find myself second-guessing that one because it doesn't have IS. If that one came out with IS, I'd ditch mine tomorrow.

 

[BorisMD]

I have been using a 7D for some time now (love it), and have owned both of the lenses you ask about. I started out with the 24-70, and really liked it, but didn't like the lack of IS. Eventually, I sold it on FredMiranda.com and bought a used 17-55 from that website.

Things I didn't like about the 24-70 were the weight and the lack of IS. Things I liked were the red ring around the barrel and the optics.

What I like about the 17-55 is the IS, the wider range, the USM focus motor, and the image quality (nice and sharp -- L quality but only for cropped sensors). What I don't like: I keep the camera around my neck on a BlackRapid strap, so it hangs upside down -- the lens will creep out on it's own.

Overall, the 17-55 is a great lens to keep on the camera (it pretty much lives on the 7D). Images are nice and sharp, and I've noticed no dust issues.

Really, you can't go wrong with either, but I am enjoying the versatility of the 17-55 more.

Regards,

Boris