I'm sure this question gets old fast, but here we go.
I've had an XTi since 2008 and love it. First SLR and it has served me well. Over the years I've invested in a a 430ex speedlite, some triggers and a vivitar manual flash for some off camera flash work.
My two lenses right now are the 50mm f/1.8 II and a 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6. The zoom is tiresome now. Quality is not that great and the barrel creep drives me crazy when walking with it.
On tuesday my first "L" arrived, 70-200mm f/4. Very excited about this and will be glad to ditch the 18-200.
So on to my next step. I'd like to get some wider range and for this I'm looking at the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It's had good reviews and I don't think I'll ever go up full frame so not too worried about it being EF-S.
What are opinions on the three lenses, 17-55, 50mm and 70-200. Not sure if I'll miss the 15mm gap, but shouldn't be a problem.
My other question is body. I like the XTi but I feel like at this point I may be served with something "better".
I'm torn between 60D, 7D or going slightly cheaper and trying a second hand 50D.
I take care of my kit very well, but I do feel like something a little more rugged will do me well.
I have two toddlers in the house, so they've been my subjects for some time, BUT I also travel quite a bit and I like to have a setup where I don't have to carry a heavy bag. While I'm travelling I shoot everything, very casual...just no landscapes. I suppose more "street" photography..
First, congratulations on the new L. I, too, recently got a 70-200 f/4.
Next, I'd get glass first, and save for a new body; you're going to want something wider than 50mm for street photography and chasing the kids. The 17-55 IS isn't cheap (it costs more than some L lenses), but it's an excellent lens.
A 28-135 came with my 7D, so the gap between the 17-55 and the 70-200 is covered when the light is good, but if I didn't have it I don't think I'd miss it. (And I know what you mean about barrel creep. Aggh!)
Canon should be releasing some new bodies later this year or early next year, so getting your lenses in order now while saving for a new body seems to me to be your best option.
Test a 5D MK II. It i used as cheap/expensive 7D is new. You have to give up your 17-55. But ust one pic with the 70-200 will tell you what you want/need.
You'll definitely see some image improvements if you upgrade your body - not to mention at least 1 stop of usable ISO performance (conservatively). The IQ on the 17-55 is fantastic, but I didn't see very much difference between it and Tamron's 17-50 non VC. For the price of the Canon lens, you could upgrade to a T3I (if you like the rebel series) and get the Tamron lens. If no T3I, the 60D is a great camera too!
alexpapa -- You'll get the most improvement by upgrading your body. If you are ever going to go full frame, now is the time, when you have the 50 and 70-200 lenses. Try the 5D2 and see what you think of the images.
The 60D is a great body. If you do decide to stay in the APS-C line, this is a great choice. Don't worry about the tilting LCD -- it doesn't have to be moved if you don't want to, but it is a terrific asset.
I'd say your 50/1.8 is a pretty weak lens, based on my experience. You could sell that and your 18-200.
My advice is full frame, and add the 24-105L to your 70-200 and you'll have a great package.
Aperture limit is f/4 instead of f/2.8. Long end is 40mm instead of 55mm. Oh...And did I mention Image Stabilization... The 17-40L is a nice lens, but that over the 17-55 f/2.8 IS in the even you get a Rebel/1.6x Cropper...To me, no contest!!! Don't feel like the articulating screen is a hindrance either...I found that this past weekend I really would have liked to have that feature on my 7D!!!
Gunzorro wrote:
alexpapa -- You'll get the most improvement by upgrading your body. If you are ever going to go full frame, now is the time, when you have the 50 and 70-200 lenses. Try the 5D2 and see what you think of the images.
The 60D is a great body. If you do decide to stay in the APS-C line, this is a great choice. Don't worry about the tilting LCD -- it doesn't have to be moved if you don't want to, but it is a terrific asset.
I'd say your 50/1.8 is a pretty weak lens, based on my experience. You could sell that and your 18-200.
My advice is full frame, and add the 24-105L to your 70-200 and you'll have a great package....Show more →
thanks! I really like the 50, but then again I don't know any better so I'm really looking forward to seeing the pics out of the L.
Would you recommend the 50 f/1.4 in that case ? I do like having this prime for easy walking around and indoor shots.
alexpapa wrote:
...Would you recommend the 50 f/1.4 in that case ? I do like having this prime for easy walking around and indoor shots.
I had the 50 1.8, but it broke when I looked at it the wrong way; not the best build quality in the world. I have the 50 1.4 now, and it's a definite step up, but what I really should have done was kept my 35 1.4L. I needed some fast cash, but I should have sold my body on a seedy street corner or something, and kept that lens. Especially on cropped-sensor cameras like my 20D and 7D, 35mm is a better (in my opinion) street and indoor focal length than 50mm.
BrianO wrote:
I had the 50 1.8, but it broke when I looked at it the wrong way; not the best build quality in the world. I have the 50 1.4 now, and it's a definite step up, but what I really should have done was kept my 35 1.4L. I needed some fast cash, but I should have sold my body on a seedy street corner or something, and kept that lens. Especially on cropped-sensor cameras like my 20D and 7D, 35mm is a better (in my opinion) street and indoor focal length than 50mm.
thanks I'd better be careful, the more I check this thread the more money I want to spend
alexpapa -- Yes, the 50/1.4 is definitely better than the 50/1.8. So if you like what you have, you'll probably like the 1.4 better. And for about 1/2 the price, you can get a 50/2.5 macro that is outstanding for image quality.
You'll want a wide angle lens/zoom with the full frame, so that's where a 24-70L or 24-105L comes in handy. The nice thing about the 24-105 is that you can leave it on your body and it will handle just about any photo opportunity you encounter.
You probably don't want to spend a fortune, so if you go with used gear, the 5D2 will be nearly 2,000 and the 24-105 about 800. A new 50/1.4 is around 400, a used 50 macro is about $250, and a used 24-70 is over 1000.
For me, I'd go for the 5D2, 70-200, 24-105 (or 24-70, its what I have), and 50 Macro.
Alex, whatever you do, DO NOT GET THE 85 f 1.8! You will want to go to full frame after taking photos of your toddlers in natural/low light indoors!!! (It is a little too much tele indoors on a 1.6 sensor for me.)
That said, Canon's 17-55 works great on my 7D indoors with the f 2.8. If you add the 17-55 to your gear list, I think you will really enjoy it. I upgrade to newer cameras only when I have requirements for the new features. (Of course, I only purchase new lenses when I need the attributes from a different lens (aperture, IS, focal length, etc).
i had a 400d from 2008 until 2011. i tried on it the 70-200 f/4 IS, 100 f/2.8 IS, 15-85. they were all nice but i felt i need a bigger step. so bought a 550d and to be honest i noticed a stronger improvement. so my vote goes for a new aps-c body.
I personally have a 17-40, 50, and 70-200 and have never had any issues. If you get the 17-55, sell the 50mm because you won't need it in all likelihood. If you really like the 50mm, consider a 17-40. It's a fantastic lens.
If you have unlimited money (which if you have small kids, you probably don't), then go with the suggestions that are telling you to get several new lenses and a full frame.
thanks for all the suggestions! I (of course) was not expecting the silver bullet of the perfect kit, but good to hear opinions. Will check out some of the bodies and lenses this weekend and my local store.
I had the 17-55mm 2.8 and the 70-200 f/4 IS. Both great on crop body. I personally wouldn't be able to continue living if I didn't also have an ultra-wide like the Canon EF-S 10-22mm, but if you've tried ultra-wide and can live without it then more power to you.
(That being said, if the idea of spending an additional $1200 or more appeals to you, it's true that full frame is another level altogether.)
I agree with getting a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC)...excellent performance. Would save you quite a bit of $$$ over the 17-55mm and that savings could go towards a newer Rebel or 60D.
The 17-40L is a nice lens, but that over the 17-55 f/2.8 IS in the even you get a Rebel/1.6x Cropper...To me, no contest!!! Don't feel like the articulating screen is a hindrance either...I found that this past weekend I really would have liked to have that feature on my 7D!!! 