tcamper wrote:
Could you link me to the "real zoom" checklist website? I'm scared now. Do I own a fake one?
Tad
Well, I 'personally' don't consider the 28-80/3.5-5.6 real as it is quite soft throughout the ranges unless you stop down to f/8 or so. I guess it is fine if you don't need anything bigger than a 4x6 print for your client. So I guess I am wrong, it is a zoom with pretty limited use.
If you are a ratings guy, I think a FM rating of 4.2 is pretty darn low.
fchang, I'm sure the humor was lost in my post, but my suggestion would be to learn how to use flash with the 2.8 wide zoom (whichever one you get). I will say however, that IS combined with good flash technique can be a lot of fun.
fchang wrote:
I got a budget to get either the 24L or the 17-55. I use a 30D
To me the lenses are so far apart as to not be comparable .. the biggest difference would be the additional speed and bokeh ability of the 24, plus the "je ne sais quoi" which makes the lens a special one.
On your 30D the 24 will act like a 38mm lens, which is a very usable wide-normal length.
Shag the budget and get two bodies .. one with the 17-55 2.8 pretty much permanently mounted and a second one rotating a 24L, 50L, and maybe a longer lens as well .. the 100 2.8 is a sharp lens and doubles as a macro.
tcamper, sorry that I miss the humor , but I really appreciate the suggestion. I think I definitely need to practice & use more flash as fast/wide is just not possible w/ my 30D given the budget. So I will go for a wide zoom and see how that goes.
mike, I am planning to go on the FF/all prime route in the future. In the meantime, I think the 16-35 or the 17-55 will meet my needs. Now if I can shag the budget somehow.... I'll get the 5D w/ the 24L.
I am going through the same argument in my head (17-55 vs 24L)
I have 17-85 and 10-22, so the wide is covered. My favorite lens in the Sigma 20/1.8, but it is a bit soft wide open, and I find I am often cropping a bit. I use it in urban and event photography, like parties. I just like the length.
The 17-55 gets so many raves, and I assume would trounce the 17-85 (below 55mm).
I also shoot landscapes. Are there any real differences between these lens stopped down to f8 or f11? Which would be better? I have heard the fast primes are not necessarily better when stopped down - the slow primes are actually sharper, like the Zeiss 21.
Dust issues aren't anything serious. Every lens will have dust... it's reality. Some people abuse their equipment, some people get unlucky, and some people manage to get fungus in sealed L zooms... it's all relative.
In doors with low light, the 17-55 IS is no joke. I'd take it over the 24-70 and the 16-35. It covers a great range, is 2.8, and has IS. If you need it, get it. Also, the whole thing about going full frame: most of these lenses sell back on the used market for 90% of their worth. If you do go full frame, then sell it off. However, until you do, it's going to be a great tool.
