Buying a lens for a camera you don't have right now doesn't make much sense. The smartest choice would just be to send your 17-50 OS in for a checkup and go from there. Actually, you should do it either way. Are you really going to sell someone a lens you think is soft and crappy before you even send it in to get fixed?
I suppose, if you really just want to spend your money and by a lens because of it's "L" designation, then no one can stop you. I think you've already made up your mind, because you're ignoring reasonable advice regarding alternatives.
ontime wrote:
I suppose, if you really just want to spend your money and by a lens because of it's "L" designation, then no one can stop you. I think you've already made up your mind, because you're ignoring reasonable advice regarding alternatives.
Haha, this is why I don't spend too much time in the FM Canon forums much no more (no more, no more! ). People have their opinions and enjoy being forceful.
I get what a few of you were saying on a few mm on the wide being more important than on the long. That's a good point. In fact, when I had my 7D I was worried about this very thing with the 24-105L I had at the time. So I picked up a 16-35L for my wide needs, but the distortion was just nasty away from the center. So sure, it gave me around a 25mm FL with the crop, but it wasn't really 'worth' the trade off. Once I got a 5DM2, I dumped the 16-35L and the 24-105L for a 24-70L and have been very happy with it since.
But that's why you try a lens for a while if you can. It's really not that big of a deal, when it comes down to it.
Exactly. It probably isn't that big a of a deal. I figure, I can try it, if I like it, buy one. If I end up not liking it, I can always sell it and a get a different lens. Like many of you kept saying, Lenses hold their value pretty well, and I'm always super careful with my things.
Haha, that's fine. I forgive you. Yes, I understand the 17-55 is also a good choice, but since 24 is probably wide enough for me, extra 15 at the end will also be nice. Add that to the list of better IQ, better build quality, and full frame compatible, and it appears 24-70 is the winner. Depending on how much money I make this summer, I may even look into buying a used 5D I or 5D II.
Ok, so I'm going to start looking for Canon 24-70s on eBay. I've heard that some copies aren't as good though, some aren't as sharp. However, if I'm buying a used one, how would that work if I got an unsharp version? Could I still send it in to Canon or does it have to be under warranty? Are there any particular months of production I should watch for? Thanks!
Ok. Should I just bite the bullet and buy a new version? What are the odds that I would get a bad version do you think? I feel like I've seen LOTS of people on various sites asking "Did I get a good version?" but almost all of the replies have said they did get a good one.
adamvk1 wrote:
Ok. Should I just bite the bullet and buy a new version? What are the odds that I would get a bad version do you think? I feel like I've seen LOTS of people on various sites asking "Did I get a good version?" but almost all of the replies have said they did get a good one.
Buy from a reputable member on the B&S board here.
If you're thinking about getting the 24-70, which it seems that you are, borrow it from your boss for a few days. It is a lot of money and a heavy lens. It can be a bit intimidating at first, so I suggest you make sure it's what you want. Also, it's worth noting that the 17-55 has IS, whereas the 24-70 doesn't. Don't get me wrong, I love my 24-70, but that's primarily because I bought it before the 17-55 IS came out.
Yea, hopefully I can borrow it soon. I just need to wait for it to get back from Canon and a time when he doesn't need it.
Yea, I'm thinking 24 might be just not wide enough, but I don't know, hence why borrowing it will be helpful. And if I eventually buy the 24-70 and find it not wide enough, I'll just sell it and trade it in for a 17-55.
Just adding more information I discovered to the list. I looked at Lightroom and discovered the filtering tool in the library.
So, in the past 3 years, I've had three "main" setups. Number one was my first DSLR, a Sony a230 and the kit 18-55. Number two was the Sony a55 and a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. When that was stolen I bought my Canon 60D and the Sigma 17-50 f2.8
Setup number one:
Number one most used focal length was 18 with 31%, number two was 55mm with 14%, and third was 35mm with 12%.
Next setup, 57% at 50mm, 17mm was 5%. 28% was between 30 and 49mm.
Current setup, 40% at 50mm, 19% at 17mm, the rest is basically completely equal from 18-49.
So, anyways, it looks like the 24 would probably be wide enough.
Yep.. 24mm is not wide enough.. Check out the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.
It is wider, fast and extremely good optics. and Last but not the least its cheaper . I have the Non VC version of the lens. If you want a wider lens then you can check out Tokina 11-16 mm or the new Sigma 8-16 mm.
All of the lenses here are for 1.6 corp sensor bodies.
You can always do as I did (I have the 24-105) and add a UWA to the bag as well. Mine does not get much use but it's always there when I need it
Every now and then I think about adding the 10-22 so I have a true wide angle on my 7D, but I keep wondering how much I'll use it. I tend to shoot on the tele end more than the wide end, and for me, indoors the 24-70 goes plenty wide enough.
It's pretty nice that your boss is letting you borrow his lens.
Yeah my UWA gets only limited use. When it does get used its normally at the very widest settings. I picked my 12-24 up cheap enough so it was not such an issue.
). People have their opinions and enjoy being forceful.
