First of all, I'm new here. I was glad to find a place with such good info and enthusiastic purveyors of same. I have been in and out of photography for years--too many to either count, or admit to. But I'm coming back in with a vengeance.
So, I've been agonizing over my next purchase. After MUCH deliberation, I have decided to get a Canon 50d and A lens. Which lens? I don't know.
I have a friend on this board who has been guiding me toward the 17-55mm 2.8 --which currently has a $70 instant rebate going. The problem is that it's still the better part of a $1000 bill. Not that it's a "problem" per se, but you have to realize I started this endeavor with the thoughts of buying a T1i and a kit lens and skipping merrily on my way in the knowledge that I'm only about $800 lighter. Now I'm buying an almost $1000 body and vertical grip (a flaw in my personality prevents me from shooting with an slr that doesn't have one), and now a lens.
So I get this guy's advice and he steers me in the 17-55mm direction. The guy knows his stuff, but he's also a little more advanced in this craft than I am and therefore probably more peticular. While we are on the subject, what the hell is "BOKEH"? I mean I have discerned its meaning from the literally thousands of reviews I have read in the past weeks, but where did it come from? Years ago we called it a "blurred background". Now every numbnut with a camera who has written an Amazon review uses the word. How do I even say it? Bo Kay? But I digress.
CANON 15-85mm IS. When it first came out it was $800--which I think we can all agree is too high. Well, now it is coming down and is almost to $700--still high, but better. I really like the range too, and the (three) reviews I've read seem to laud its build quality and IQ. It seems like a really great walk-around lens, but I have this black cloud hanging over my head because it isn't "fast enough". It's no 2.8 to be sure, but can't you compensate to some degree with ISO adjustments? Trust me, nobody loves natural light photos more than me, but the 17-55 2.8 has less range and 30% more cost than the 15-85 and for what? Bokeh?
I'm pretty confused right now, and I'm sure if my buddy reads this I'll be getting an email later (send it to my home email, A).
So what, if anything, do you Canon mavens knwo about this lens--and what, if anything, can you advise?
Wow...congratulations on getting back...the 15-85 is Canon's attempt to answer the 1.6x Crop owners cry for a 24-105L F/4 equivalent. I've seen some nice shots, but don't know how it handles. Looking into your "dilema" and desire for a quality f/2.8, you might want to look at the new Tamron 18-50 f/2.8 VC lens. If my memory serves me correctly, it comes in at a fairly modest $600ish range, and has the Vibration Control the IS equivalent from Canon. If you don't do 3rd party lenses then the only choices you have for 2.8 is the 17-55 f/2.8 IS in an EF-s, and from it's reputation here, it's definately no slouch. You might even be able to pick one up on the B&S boards here for a very fair price. You know some "idiots" like myself went full frame and now are liquidating our EF-s lenses...Good luck
I have the 15-85 and love it. It was about focal length for me. 15 is a good bit wider than 17, and the 85 on the long end is also nice. I have a low light camera, the 5D and other glass for when I want to shoot in the dark.
I bought the 15-85 as a one lens solution for my 40D and am more than satisfied. IMO, it matches the 24-105L in sharpness. Build quality is the best of any EF-S lens that I have seen to date. I'm a fan of the 15-85 and would recommend it to those who want this focal length.
if you want one lens to start, the tamron 17-50 2.8 is your best low-cost option. if you want better lenses (always a good choice!) then consider a EF-S 10-22 and a 24-70L to cover that wide to mid range (more money though)
of course, it all depends on what kind shooting you'll be doing...
I've just got a used tamron 17-50 2.8. It's cheap and nice quality (doesn't have FTM and is buzzy)... and comes with a hood...
I was waiting for the VC version but I got a nice local deal here, so, I'll wait for the reviews.
I just didn't thought about the 15-85 because it's not a constant aperture. But its quality seems amazing.
Initially I want to buy canon lenses. I think an Ideal combo would be the 10-22mm, 17-55mm 2.8 and the 70-200mm 2.8. I will have the former and the latter for sure, it's that middle one that's got me so confused. I guess I could get the 15-85mm as an all purpose walkaround and maybe supliment it with a 50mm 1.4 or a 28mm 1.8 for low light indoor stuff?
I don't shoot weddings or anything like that. Mostly kids, and mostly my own kids. Every now and then I do some art for art's sake. My MO is to be prepared for whatever may come---because I never know from day to day what I'll be either presented with to shoot, or in the mood to shoot.
NotoriousSEG wrote:
My MO is to be prepared for whatever may come---because I never know from day to day what I'll be either presented with to shoot, or in the mood to shoot.
In that case I would go to the 17-55. It's 2.8 and have IS.
It's better to have 2.8 and don't need it than need it (in the case of 15-85) and don't have it. You can add the 50 1.4 latter.
I have both 28 and 50. I prefer the 50 for its sharpness but it's a portrait lens in a crop sensor.
if your getting the 10-22 and 70-200 I would get the 24-105/4L
I have the tokina 12-24 & 24-105 &80-200L and they make a great combo.
If you want the 2.8 glass then a 24-70 does the job nicely but is pricey or the 17-55 if you think you can do without 56-69mm.
For me I spend alot of time between 50 -100mm so the overlap at the top end is a better thing. And if I want the shallower DOF and better bokeh I pull out the 80-200L
I guess it comes down to knowing that f/2.8 is f/2.8. With or without IS, a f/3.5 will never allow at the otherwise same settings same settings. A 1/2 stop doesn't sound like much but when you're battling 1/100th and 1/160th of a second (or the like) there is a big difference.
