2 lenses or one?
Discussion
I've just bought a Canon 40D to replace my age old 300D and although I'm totally chuffed with it, I'm still using my crappy old 18-55mm kit lens, and cheapo 55-200mm USM f/4.5-5.6 tele lens.
Although it was ok for the 300D, I'm now in the market for a lens (or possibly two), for the 40D.
I like working with wide angle shots as well as having a bit of zoom potential so I'm thinking of the following combination as it's not much more than a single Canon 17-55mm USM IS f/2.8.
- Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens
- Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens
This should pretty much handle most of my needs for now, albeit with two lenses. The total cost is about £600-£700 for both lenses so budget wise, it's about the same as the 17-55mm I mentioned earlier.
So I'm wondering, is this a good combination, or am I restricted myself unnecessarily, and what would be a better choice keeping in mind my budget??
Cheers,
BB
Although it was ok for the 300D, I'm now in the market for a lens (or possibly two), for the 40D.
I like working with wide angle shots as well as having a bit of zoom potential so I'm thinking of the following combination as it's not much more than a single Canon 17-55mm USM IS f/2.8.
- Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens
- Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens
This should pretty much handle most of my needs for now, albeit with two lenses. The total cost is about £600-£700 for both lenses so budget wise, it's about the same as the 17-55mm I mentioned earlier.
So I'm wondering, is this a good combination, or am I restricted myself unnecessarily, and what would be a better choice keeping in mind my budget??
Cheers,
BB
I have both which has rendered everything else I had useless (apart from the 300 which I never use anyway) Though the 1.8 50 comes in handy, but back to your question these two will cater for 98% of your needs (if you dont do sports or macro)
eta they are both light, the IS gives you 2 stops so thats nice, and tbh the 17-55 despite the wide aperture (do you do a lot of indoor low light stuff?!?!) will limit you to well, 17-55 mm about as useful as a fart in a bubble bath for general use
Having said that, the 17 whilst much wider than 24 is that what you want when you could go 10-17?
eta they are both light, the IS gives you 2 stops so thats nice, and tbh the 17-55 despite the wide aperture (do you do a lot of indoor low light stuff?!?!) will limit you to well, 17-55 mm about as useful as a fart in a bubble bath for general use
Having said that, the 17 whilst much wider than 24 is that what you want when you could go 10-17?
Edited by stigmundfreud on Tuesday 17th June 16:03
stigmundfreud said:
I have both which has rendered everything else I had useless (apart from the 300 which I never use anyway) Though the 1.8 50 comes in handy, but back to your question these two will cater for 98% of your needs (if you dont do sports or macro)
eta they are both light, the IS gives you 2 stops so thats nice, and tbh the 17-55 despite the wide aperture (do you do a lot of indoor low light stuff?!?!) will limit you to well, 17-55 mm about as useful as a fart in a bubble bath for general use
Having said that, the 17 whilst much wider than 24 is that what you want when you could go 10-17?
Cheers for the help!eta they are both light, the IS gives you 2 stops so thats nice, and tbh the 17-55 despite the wide aperture (do you do a lot of indoor low light stuff?!?!) will limit you to well, 17-55 mm about as useful as a fart in a bubble bath for general use
Having said that, the 17 whilst much wider than 24 is that what you want when you could go 10-17?
Edited by stigmundfreud on Tuesday 17th June 16:03
I wouldn't say I'm into macro photography at all, but I do the occasional bit of sports but it's generally quite rare.
With regards to indoor stuff, I do quite a bit, but like you say you are very limited with the 17-55 f/2.8 and I would rather get in this scenario a fixed lens of about 14mm such as the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens in the future. This would give me a massive wide angle lens with superb aperture performance fixed at f/2.8.
To be honest, it's an absolute pig choosing a lens. I've tried many and I'm still constantly thinking about it.
I was also wondering if I buy a lens in the US before the rebate offer ends, can I still get it?
My boss is out there and he's offered to buy it for me if I want him to and with the dollar so weak, it seems the ideal opportunity for me!
Piers_K said:
Why not drop the 17-40 and get a proper WA.. Canons 10-22 or Sigmas 10-20?
I've just checked out the review of the Canon EF-S 10-22mm at: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-E...Although it's an impressive lens, I think it would be an addition to the other two lenses I'm using. I enjoy making portrait photos at times and according to the review, this is totally unsuitable for that purpose with distortion up to the full 22mm. It would however make a stunning landscape lens.
Definitely something I would consider, but for next year though!
To be honest, I need to think of getting one lens at a time and I'm considering the Canon 17-40mm L followed on by the 24-105mm at the end of this year.
At just US$573.98, it's hard to go wrong with such a cracking bit of glass, and although I'll be limited by how much zoom I have, I've still got my crappy EF 55-200mm USM, which I'll flog on eBay the moment I get the 24-105mm.
Unfortunately that leaves space for a good 100-300 zoom lens, but lets leave that for now as that's another story!!!!
I have a 40D and the 24-105 F4 L lens. It's brilliant and I've handheld shots down to 1/8th sec easily. It's my walkabout lens and the one which is on my camera most of the time.
On top of that I have the EF-S 10-22mm which is great. At 10mm you have approx 170 degrees of viewing which gives some great angles and brilliant skies. At around 300gms is light and is always in my bag.
As for the 17-40 - I couldn't see that fitting into my usage, but thats down to what you shoot most, so it's worth looking at your most commonly used length.
On top of that I have the EF-S 10-22mm which is great. At 10mm you have approx 170 degrees of viewing which gives some great angles and brilliant skies. At around 300gms is light and is always in my bag.
As for the 17-40 - I couldn't see that fitting into my usage, but thats down to what you shoot most, so it's worth looking at your most commonly used length.
IMO for a walkabout on a crop go for one of the 18-50ish f2.8's , unless you plan on going full frame soon.
24mm is quite narrow.
I also wouldnt go near the 17-40L on a crop - its a poor walkabout (but makes a decent wide on a FF camera) - the new IS kit lens is better opticaly!!
My sigma 10-20 is awsome.
24mm is quite narrow.
I also wouldnt go near the 17-40L on a crop - its a poor walkabout (but makes a decent wide on a FF camera) - the new IS kit lens is better opticaly!!
My sigma 10-20 is awsome.
RobDickinson said:
IMO for a walkabout on a crop go for one of the 18-50ish f2.8's , unless you plan on going full frame soon.
24mm is quite narrow.
I also wouldnt go near the 17-40L on a crop - its a poor walkabout (but makes a decent wide on a FF camera) - the new IS kit lens is better opticaly!!
My sigma 10-20 is awsome.
There seems to be mixed reviews on this.....Ideally the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II would be the better lens to buy but the cost is just far too high, especially as I'd like to also get the 24-105mm f/4L lens too.24mm is quite narrow.
I also wouldnt go near the 17-40L on a crop - its a poor walkabout (but makes a decent wide on a FF camera) - the new IS kit lens is better opticaly!!
My sigma 10-20 is awsome.
Hopefully I'll have enough time to get my boss to buy the 17-40mm, but I'm going to check them both out down the local Canon dealer with my 40D body after work tomorrow.
The worst case scenario I suppose is I don't like the lens and I have to sell it. It's not like I'll make a loss when I do!!!!
As I've said many times before, I'd kill for a 17-55mm F2.8 lens with IS in Nikon fit - it's the one think that would tempt me back to canon.
I had a Nikon 24-120 VR. Didn't get on with it that well. Optics too slow and didn't go wide enough for a walkabout lens. Now have 17-55 F2.8 which suits me very well. My priorities were wide angle and shallow depth of field over a bit more reach, but yours might be different.
Also have a sigma 10-20mm TBH I don't use it much - I find it too unnatural for most subjects and ticky to use in practice. Of my favourite hundred or so images of the last couple of years I'd say only 3 or 4 were taken with it. Main use is as a polarising lens - tend to keep the polariser on it and sawp over when I would normally put a polariser on my std lens - saves loads of time!
I had a Nikon 24-120 VR. Didn't get on with it that well. Optics too slow and didn't go wide enough for a walkabout lens. Now have 17-55 F2.8 which suits me very well. My priorities were wide angle and shallow depth of field over a bit more reach, but yours might be different.
Also have a sigma 10-20mm TBH I don't use it much - I find it too unnatural for most subjects and ticky to use in practice. Of my favourite hundred or so images of the last couple of years I'd say only 3 or 4 were taken with it. Main use is as a polarising lens - tend to keep the polariser on it and sawp over when I would normally put a polariser on my std lens - saves loads of time!
VxDuncan said:
As I've said many times before, I'd kill for a 17-55mm F2.8 lens with IS in Nikon fit - it's the one think that would tempt me back to canon.
I use a Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 for a great deal of my work including interiors with low ambient light, and get by without IS/VR because it's not a telephoto.Nikon are likely to update the 18-55F2.8 to add VR and to freshen up the 70-200f2.8 also.
BTW the 17-40 is a better wide than the 16-35 (on full frame) unless you want to shoot wide open, if you need that extra stop the 16-35 is worth it.
On a crop camera neither (IMO) are the right choice).
BTW the 17-40 is a better wide than the 16-35 (on full frame) unless you want to shoot wide open, if you need that extra stop the 16-35 is worth it.
On a crop camera neither (IMO) are the right choice).
Right....I've taken the plunge once again and I've asked my friend in the US to pick up a 17-40mm f/4L lens in the US for me. They're about $650 so an absolute bargain for this price.
The 24-105mm f/4L will have to come later......
I'll let you know if I get it or not..... fingers crossed
The 24-105mm f/4L will have to come later......
I'll let you know if I get it or not..... fingers crossed
stigmundfreud said:
I have both which has rendered everything else I had useless (apart from the 300 which I never use anyway).
eta they are both light, the IS gives you 2 stops so thats nice, and tbh the 17-55 despite the wide aperture (do you do a lot of indoor low light stuff?!?!) will limit you to well, 17-55 mm about as useful as a fart in a bubble bath for general use
Interesting. I have a 40D, so 1.6* crop, and am torn between the 17-55mm f2.8 or the 24-105mm f4.0L (both IS). Both are comparable prices, but the 17-55 seems to edge things in terms of sharpness of image, quality and lower apeture range. I would be primarily using the lens on landscapes, buildings, low light/night, long exposure work - but equally do not want to loose all telephoto capability (occasional close motorsport/nature). I will also be getting a "nifty fifty" for portrait shots. eta they are both light, the IS gives you 2 stops so thats nice, and tbh the 17-55 despite the wide aperture (do you do a lot of indoor low light stuff?!?!) will limit you to well, 17-55 mm about as useful as a fart in a bubble bath for general use
Does the f2.8 therefore make a significant positive difference for landscape photos/lower light situations (dawn/dusk) or would f4.0 still produce good quality photos?
Mustang Baz said:
stigmundfreud said:
I have both which has rendered everything else I had useless (apart from the 300 which I never use anyway).
eta they are both light, the IS gives you 2 stops so thats nice, and tbh the 17-55 despite the wide aperture (do you do a lot of indoor low light stuff?!?!) will limit you to well, 17-55 mm about as useful as a fart in a bubble bath for general use
Interesting. I have a 40D, so 1.6* crop, and am torn between the 17-55mm f2.8 or the 24-105mm f4.0L (both IS). Both are comparable prices, but the 17-55 seems to edge things in terms of sharpness of image, quality and lower apeture range. I would be primarily using the lens on landscapes, buildings, low light/night, long exposure work - but equally do not want to loose all telephoto capability (occasional close motorsport/nature). I will also be getting a "nifty fifty" for portrait shots. eta they are both light, the IS gives you 2 stops so thats nice, and tbh the 17-55 despite the wide aperture (do you do a lot of indoor low light stuff?!?!) will limit you to well, 17-55 mm about as useful as a fart in a bubble bath for general use
Does the f2.8 therefore make a significant positive difference for landscape photos/lower light situations (dawn/dusk) or would f4.0 still produce good quality photos?
The f/2.8 also makes a big difference in light. You get a whole extra stop for light to hit your sensor and that's a big deal in low light situations. I opted for the 17-40mm f/4 L merely so that when the time comes, I can upgrade easily to a full-frame sensor. Keep that in mind if you are thinking of the same in the future.
I do however have the 430EX flash so that compensates for my f/4 aperture.
Either way, both lenses will produce excellent photos regardless and it's simply down to how you use them.
If you are after telephoto stuff, buy a separate lens for this purpose. After doing plenty of research, the 70-200mm IS range is a great choice. Both the f/4 and f/2.8 versions.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff