I think that you could safely use your 17-55 f/2.8 IS instead of primes. I do not have this lens any more but it is definitely sharp and I would only keep EF 50 f/1.4 but even this is not certain.
I currently do not have zooms in this focal range and personally like 35 f/2.0 very much.
I prefer longer focal distance and that is why, I would always choose 70-200 f/4.0 L IS over 17-55 if I could only keep one lens.
p.2 #4 · With EF-S 17-55/2.8 does 24/2.8 make sense
ultimaterowdy wrote:
I say enjoy one new lens purchase at a time. explore where it takes you. then go from there.
do you end up wishing for more focal length? more speed? more macro ability?
your own experience can answer your own questions better than we can.
that said 85 1.8 sounds like a good compromise... extends your range & buys you fast focusing speed.
Great advice and major saver on the pocketbook...wish u wud have told me this sooner lol. I recently aquired the 17-55, 10-22 and 85/1.8 in a short period. As you suggested, I am glad I went with the 85/1.8 over the 50/1.4 I had originally planned on as it extends my range and makes it more versatile. I think ill put the brakes for now and see whats on the agenda next based on my experience. Thanks!
p.2 #8 · With EF-S 17-55/2.8 does 24/2.8 make sense
misternikko wrote:
thanks Big, but Ls are not in my budget currently. the 17-55 was costly enough
Stop spending on redundant items like the 24 f/2.8 and they soon will be
p.2 #9 · With EF-S 17-55/2.8 does 24/2.8 make sense
The only reason to go to another f/2.8 lens versus the 17-55 would be for size or cheaper filters. Any other lens is not going to be noticeably sharper or better CA. Plus the 17-55 has IS which is way more useful than some people let on. You can hand hold landscape/museum shots down to 1/6s at 24mm.
p.2 #10 · With EF-S 17-55/2.8 does 24/2.8 make sense
misternikko wrote:
when u say 60/2.8 and 85/1.8 are another matter...u mean its worth taking those on to my 17-55?
Exactly. I actually have both 17-55 and 60.
misternikko wrote:
Not sure where the 100/2.8 IS comes into play, its a tad long for a prime on a crop for me.
It's very personal. I have the 135/2 on 40D and not always find it long enough. I suggested the 100/2.8 IS as a suitable pair as...
1. The FL is rather different.
2. It's fast.
3. It's optically excellent like the 17-55.
4. It's stabilized like the 17-55. I find my 135/2 useless when light gets low and plan to change it just to get IS.
misternikko wrote:
Im actually looking to pick up a 55-250 IS soon for the mid to long range.
It's a rather good lens but nowhere near the primes.
reason wrote:
Read up on that and seems like EVERYONE has issues with the IS system. Why buy a lemon? Get a 24-70 and don't ever have to worry about it or the dust inside the lens
2 years. 0 IS problems. 0 dust problems (no filter). Actually, 0 problems of any kind.
p.2 #12 · With EF-S 17-55/2.8 does 24/2.8 make sense
UCSB wrote:
If you own a 17-55, I doubt you would use a 28 2.8. I sold mine after I picked up the 17-55. The 17-55 is prime sharp. It has been a couple of years since I sold my 28, but I think the 17-55 is sharper.
Mine is crazy-sharp too. One reason I elected not to get a 24 or 32 prime.
reason wrote:
Lets not kid yourself. It's a good lens,but it's not anywhere near being prime sharp.
Bought one for my cousin last year and IS broke after 3 months. Then after it was taken to a Canon for repair it broke again 2 months after warranty expired. Read up on that and seems like EVERYONE has issues with the IS system. Why buy a lemon? Get a 24-70 and don't ever have to worry about it or the dust inside the lens
Mine is nearly three years old, not a single issue with my IS or dust.
I have *one* spec of dust inside, which came back from Canon after I sent it in for calibration. Since its a factory-installed spec, I dont worry about it.
p.2 #14 · With EF-S 17-55/2.8 does 24/2.8 make sense
looks like 24/2.8 is a gonner. Thanks everyone
I did want a small prime after I sell my 50/1.8 in a few days...just for a lighter set up when i feel like it. Im thinking the 35/2 since my soon to be acquired 60/2.8 macro will be good enough for the 50mm range. I like how the 35 is also just about 50mm on a crop.
p.2 #15 · With EF-S 17-55/2.8 does 24/2.8 make sense
misternikko wrote:
...Im thinking the 35/2 since my soon to be acquired 60/2.8 macro will be good enough for the 50mm range. I like how the 35 is also just about 50mm on a crop.
Any thoughts on this lens?
The 35/2 was high on my list of lenses to be aquired, but I ended up overextending my credit to get the 35L instead. I haven't used the 35/2, but friends and associates who have have all reported positively on it as a "good bang for the buck" lens.
p.2 #17 · With EF-S 17-55/2.8 does 24/2.8 make sense
Frankly, I'm surprised. The issue isn't that the 24/2.8 is a bad lens. It's not at all. It's actually quite good for a 24/2. That high quality (and value) is why it hasn't changed since the late 80's. The issue is that the 17-55/2.8 IS is such a good lens. If you don't appreciate the small/light/candid nature of the 24/2.8 over the 17-55, then the same would hold true for the 35/2.
If you can swing the extra cost, the Sigma 30/1.4 would be top on my list for a crop prime in that focal length.
