Canon 40D or XSi (450D) (1 Viewer)

[Scott Merryfield]

Bryan,

The only thing I would be concerned with regarding the 24-70mm f/2.8 would be that it would not be wide enough on your crop sensor body. You do mention that you also own the 10-22mm, but consider how often you shoot at the wide end with your "walk-around" 17-85mm lens. That could mean a lot of lens changes that you do not currently have to do.

That's why I still have the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, even though I'd love to have an "L" lens in case I ever upgrade to a full-frame sensor. 24mm is just not wide enough for me on a walk-around lens, and I also own the 10-22mm wide angle lens. However, the 10-22mm only gets put on the camera when I really need a wide angle. The overlap in focal length can be quite useful, depending on your shooting style.

 

[Bryan X]

Because of the the barrel distortion on the 17-85 below 24mm, I almost never go below 24mm on the 17-85. Which is why I finally picked up the 10-22 a few weeks ago. Really, the only time I itch to go below 24mm is when we are travelling. With another trip to Yellowstone coming up I thought now would be the time to get the 10-22.

However, the issue about lens changes somewhat concerns me on the long end. Yes, I've got the 70-200 f/4 "L" to cover 70 and up, but I don't want to switch lenses everytime I need just a little more reach beyond 70mm. And I probably do shoot regularly between 70 and 85. I really need to go through my old shots and figure out just how much I use the 70-85 range on the 17-85.

How do you like your EF-S 17-55? I've heard nothing but raves about its image quality. I'd love to have that lens, but I know I'd be wanting on the long end if I had it.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Sam has been a Nikon guy for a while now, so I doubt he's talking about Canon lenses for his "dream lenses".

Anyway, is the Canon 17-85IS really that bad for barrel distortion at the wide end? The Nikon 18-70DX has moustache-like distortion at the wide end, not just barrel distortion, even though the zoom range is actually less than the Canon widezoom. I didn't use that Nikon lens all that much, but the moustache-like distortion did occasionally rear its ugly head in my photos.

I recently picked up a very lightly used, mint condition Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 DX locally off eBay for ~$820 net cost (after live.com cashback) -- just in time for a spring break family vacation to DC. Very nice lens though it's not w/out its own flaws. Works great as a walkaround for me, which I never really felt the same about the old 18-70DX -- always felt a need to bring along my 35 f/2 and usually also my 85 f/1.8 w/ that before, and even tried adding a (big-ish) Sigma 20 f/1.8 for the wide end, but that one is just too hefty to lug around (for a fixed prime) unless I'm fairly sure I'll use it.

As for the extra bit of tele range from 70 to 85mm (if you go for the 24-70L f/2.8), I wouldn't worry about that if I were you. Just zoom that extra bit w/ your feet instead -- or just crop a little bit more in post, if necessary. IMHO, 15mm is virtually nothing at the tele end.

_Man_

 

[Bryan X]

Yeah, the barrel distortion below 24mm on the 17-85 is really bad.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I love the EF-S 17-55. The image quality is excellent, and the IS does come in handy in low light situations where I cannot use a tripod (such as an aquarium). It focuses very fast, too. I do occasionally wish it had a little more reach, since I used to have a Sigma 17-70mm before upgrading, but not very often. I'm considering adding a 85mm f/1.8 prime for added length with fast glass before our niece's wedding this summer. It's a relatively affordable lens.

The only time I used my 10-22mm in Yellowstone was in the thermal areas, but in those areas it proved to be well worth having in the bag. For our next trip there, though, I want something longer (I had a 70-300mm IS last time -- which has since been replaced with a 70-200mm L f/4 IS). Even 500mm can be too short at times.

 

[Sam Posten]

Actually I still have both. My 20D has been permanently gifted to a friend who claimed to have wanted to take up photography more seriously but he seems to not have the fever =) glad I didnt give him my lenses too! On the Canon side I still have:

17-40F4L
28-75 F2.8 Tamron (the best value lens ever made IMO
50 1.8
Lensbaby 2.0

I sold my 85 1.8 and that's the only real 'regret' sale I have.

I didnt care for Canons 24-70 but I looooooove my Nikon 24-70 2.8 I think Canons 24-105 f4 IS is a better lens for 99.9% of those who would consider spending that much for either.

Eventually I will probably sell all the Canon stuff off, probably to finance the D750 or whatever it will be called when it becomes official. Until then it's technically my backup. I do still really respect the Canon lens lineup but I find that nikons bodies really suit me more, and the 2.8 zooms are amazing. Canon lenses I still lust after:

70-200 F4 IS, 100-400IS, 24-105IS as a 'do everything' on FF...

No real fanboyism here tho, I use whatever works and currently the nikon family fits me much better.

 

[Bryan X]

Sam, what ddin't you like about the Canon 24-70? I like the reach of the 24-105 better, but for me the f/2.8 is more important as I do shoot lowlight often and don't always want to use flash. Was the 24-70 image quality or sharpness not up to par?

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

What kind of low light capability do you really need though? Those f/2.8 L zooms are very expensive w/out necessarily being the best options for that kind of use. Depending on what you actually need, you might be better off just adding one or two lightweight, affordable fixed primes, especially for the 24-70mm range.

Remember, w/ something like the 24-70L, you're also paying (and lugging) extra for FF coverage that you don't currently need on your cropped bodies.

These pro grade f/2.8 zooms (from both Nikon and Canon) are quite hefty/bulky and obtrusive. Affordable, brighter (and probably a tad sharper) fixed primes that fall w/in this zoom range are pretty small, portable and unobtrusive. Heck, I regularly just pop my 35 f/2 in a jacket pocket and go.

_Man_

 

[Sam Posten]

The canon 24-70s seem to have sharpness issues at f2.8 where the nikon is as sharp as comparable primes at that same aperture. The 24-105IS also seems to be pretty sharp fully open as well. Yes these lenses are beasts but when paired with a magnesium body like the D300 they are really well balanced and feel like real pro tools.

I looked at these over 2 years ago and it didn't seem like the canon 2.8 was the right tool for me with a 20D but if I had a 5d or its successor the 24-105 would be a no brainer for my uses. I'm using the 14-24 and 24-70 nikons now on a crop body and can't wait for a D700 successor to come along, that will be the first time I actually pre-order a camera. Regardless of any other changes I will be buying Nikon's first FF camera with video, assuming it costs under $3500...

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Oh, I'm not arguing that at all. I do enjoy the balance w/ a quality f/2.8 zoom on my D200 too, but there's a time for everything, IMHO, and I do also enjoy shooting w/ lighter, smaller, less obtrusive primes on my camera. In fact, when I first switched from D70 to D200, I really took notice to how much nicer the D200 feels in my hands even w/ those small primes (and found I could often shoot at maybe 2/3-stop slower shutter speeds than before as a result).

Anyway, the heft aspect is just one small thing to consider. The main point was whether he *really* needed the 24-70L or whether something else won't actually suit him better (and maybe cost less also in both $ and heft).

Basically, I'm suggesting not to get too caught up w/ lens/gear lust. Bigger is not always gonna be better.

_Man_

 

[Sam Posten]

Agreed totally, tho I have to admit that my buying both the 14-24 and 24-70 at one time due to the Cashback bonanza really satisfied my lens lust all at once. There's nothing quite like having 'the best' to do that for you. I just wish I could do that at the long end of the spectrum, I really do have need for a high quality 400+ mm lens for my Osprey project (09-Ospreys - a set on Flickr) but to get anything that will really satisfy I'm looking north of $5k....

 

[Eric Samonte]

I just got a 28-135 IS USM. I decided to go non-EF-S lenses. Makes me think I'm playing with the big boys but mostly so whne I go non-crop camera, I would have the right lenses for it. I'm still using my XTi as the body only T1i hasn't arrived yet. Thing is, the camera body looks awfully small for the lens...looks like an abomination. Better looking than them kit lenses on most DSLRs.

 

[Bryan X]

I just pulled the trigger on a 35mm f/1.4 L. I can't wait to start using it.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I'm considering a prime for my next lens, too, Bryan. In my case it's the 85mm f/1.8. Our niece is getting married this summer, and a longer, fast lens may come in handy for the church.

 

[Bryan X]

I've got the 85mm f/1.8 and it is a great lens and a great price too. I mostly use it for basketball, but on occasion I've used it indoors for portraits and such and it does great.

 

[Jim_C]

I'm looking to finally make the jump into a DSLR from my film Rebel. I've settled on the 40D but am having a hell of a time deciding what lenses to go with. I've got a 24-85 consumer lens and I want to sell it and step up to L glass, or close to it anyway. I just can't decide between primes or zooms (or which zoom, for that matter). I really like zooms and would hate to lose their flexibility but ultimately I want the highest image quality I can get.

If I go with primes then I'm looking at this combo:

EF 50 f/1.4 USM
EF 85 f/1.8 USM
EF 135 f/2 L USM

If I go with zooms I'm looking at one of the following:
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM
EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM
EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM

I'd also be getting an EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM down the road.

I guess my question is, will the quality of the primes listed above be superior enough to the zooms listed above to make it worth giving up the flexibility of a zoom? My preference is to have one lens on the camera 90% of the time, which keeps me leaning towards a zoom, but not if I'm giving up a lot of IQ doing so.

I shoot family, events, landscape, travel, etc. I'd say 50/50 between indoor and outdoor.

Any advice would be appreciated. My eyes are beginning to glaze over from reading the major photography forums.

 

[Citizen87645]

If you're shooting events, family and landscape you pretty much need a wide lens and the only one on the list that goes wide enough is the EF-S 17-55.

 

[Bryan X]

Check out this website for GREAT reviews of all the canon lenses:

Canon Digital SLR Camera & Lens Reviews

 

[Jim_C]

Yeah, I've been on that site, as well as Fred Miranda and photo.net. Lots of great info but I'm getting information overload. Every time I think I've settled on a lens I read another thread and it's back to undecided. I've got good advice on a number of topics here on HTF so I thought I'd give it a shot.

Cameron, you're right that I need a wide angle. I've thought about adding a WA prime to the list but haven't decided on which one.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

What you need/want really depends on *exactly* what you'll do (not on what someone else has been doing) -- and that can change as you grow in your photographic experience and develop your own eye for photography.

There are just no perfect choices (that work for everyone). You choose one lens, and then, you're gonna find out later that maybe you need something else. And if you buy them all, then you're gonna end needing to figure out which ones to lug for when.

For instance, that 90% thing doesn't work (for good results anyway). Often times, I'm perfectly fine using one of my fixed primes, eg. 35 f/2, as walkaround -- and the restriction actually provides a certain freedom to experiment and learn, etc. what one can actually do w/out zooming the lens (and then, one actually get better results that way). The lens zooming thing, IMHO, can be as much a distraction from making good photographs as it can be convenient, and I typically find myself choosing some particular focal length on my zooms to shoot rather than zooming the lens while I'm looking thru the viewfinder. I usually just move myself some if what I see thru the VF is not what I actually wanted, and if it's completely "wrong", I'm better off rethinking my shot (and then choose the needed focal length for it). That's not to say I never actively zoom the lens while shooting, but you'll learn that your compositions will be better if you don't rely on that for your shooting.

So it really depends...

_Man_