Debating between Canon Lenses

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by onedayillknowbetter, Apr 22, 2008.

  1. onedayillknowbetter

    onedayillknowbetter TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I know that it is time for me to get a new lens, but I am undecided about which one to get. Right now, my walk-around lens for my 40D is the Canon 28-135, and it is not working for me. The image quality is very nice, but man, 28mm is just not wide enough.
    After taking photos at a party where there were a lot of people and DJ's, last weekend, I realized that this lens isn't going to cut it much longer. Most of my DJ photos and crowd shots were either really bad or were really good, but missing a crucial part (i.e. the DJ's face). The night after that party, I went to another similar party with lots of people and DJ's, but I took my 17-55mm, and I wasn't entirely satisfied with my images, probably because the F stop on that lens.

    So my question is: how wide should I go? My initial instinct would be to go as wide as possible, but then quality comes to mind too. I am usually working in low light (with flash), in small environments, with lots of people, so I end up holding the camera above my head and taking pictures that way too (when it's too crowded). Here is what I am considering (so far):
    -EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
    -
    Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
    -
    Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS
    -
    Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

    Obviously, the less expensive the better, because I can have it sooner, but I don't want to regret my purchase either. Thank you!
     
  2. keith204

    keith204 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Bolivar, MO
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I JUST bought the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and the IQ is incredible, and it's an EXCELLENT range. It's incredible in low-light. I'd totally recommend it.

    With a 10-22, and a 28-135, you'll be flirting between the two lenses too much and it'll drive you nuts. A 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a great range.
     
  3. onedayillknowbetter

    onedayillknowbetter TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit

    I was reading the thread you posted about that lens, and then I decided to post one of my own. The range that the 17-55 offers is enticing, but so is the 10-22. I'm really, really short, and when holding the camera above myself to get a crowd shot, I really don't get a whole lot with my 28-135. I just wonder if 17mm will be wide enough, even though 22mm might not be at times.
     
  4. Big Mike

    Big Mike I am Big, I am Mike Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    33,822
    Likes Received:
    1,811
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Do you mean the 18-55mm F3.5-5.6?

    Did you find that 17mm(18mm) was a good focal length? If so, then the 17-55 F2.8 IS would be a great lens...but really expensive. The 17-85mm IS, is a pretty good lens but the aperture isn't any better than the 18-55mm lens.

    If 17mm isn't wide enough for you...then go for one of the wider ones. I love my 10-22mm Canon lens...but keep in mind that a lens that wide will distort things and people usually don't like the photos of themselves taken with wide lenses like that...but for a crowded club, I can see that being a cool effect.
     
  5. onedayillknowbetter

    onedayillknowbetter TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Yes, I meant the 18-55. So many lenses and numbers to remember!
    I was sort of satisfied with the focal length of that lens that night, but I still lost some DJ's heads in some good photos. Thanks for bringing up the fact that the 17-55 is expensive. When looking at new equipment, its all pretty much numbers, but a friendly reminder that it costs dern near as much as my camera is good. I'm, like I said usually in tightly packed, small, and hot places with lots of other [drunk] people, so a $1000 lens probably isn't the best choice.

    That being said, would you say that a Sigma lens is significantly different from a similar Canon lens? I've looked at some images online, but can't really tell a difference in image quality, but I don't know if there is something I need to know about Sigma, or non-Canon lenses in general.
     
  6. memento

    memento No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    699
    Likes Received:
    78
    Location:
    Washington DC
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    i have a 40d and a 28-135 too.
    i had the same problem, 28mm wasn't wide enough.
    i got a 17-55 about a month ago.
    i haven't taken it off my camera.

    i thought i might miss the 135mm part but i haven't.
    i've been mostly shooting around 17-30ish range.
    and the best part is, i haven't backed into a wall yet!!

    i highly recommend it, albeit a bit pricey.
     
  7. Big Mike

    Big Mike I am Big, I am Mike Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    33,822
    Likes Received:
    1,811
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Usually, the Canon is the better lens...but almost always costs a lot more. I think that holds true for the Canon 10-22mm and the Sigma 10-20mm. They are both pretty similar, with maybe a slight edge to the Canon...but the Sigma has a better price.
     
  8. JustAnEngineer

    JustAnEngineer TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2008
    Messages:
    609
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Heart of Dixie
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    There's a $400 Tamron AF17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II lens that might be an intermediate option between the 18-55 kit lens and the $1000 EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens. I have the 17-55 and I am quite happy with it.
     

Share This Page