Questions

redlazer · Apr 23, 2011

I'm wanting to save the money for a upgrade lens for my Canon 18-55mm. The lenses I was looking at is the Canon 17-55mm f2.8, and the Canon 15-85mm. I know they both are great lenses, and the 17-55 2 stops faster, and I also know the 15-85mm has longer focus and is wider due to the 15mm. The 17-55 is a lot better at low light, but quility of photos fade with very bright light. The 15-85mm is not good at low light. With that being said I have a Canon 50mm 1.4 that will out do ether at low light which is one reason I'm leaning towards the 15-85mm plus it is a lot cheaper. I was wanting your inputs on what lens would be a better general purpose walk around lens for me? I also will be getting after this lens a Canon 70-200mm L lens to upgrade my 75-300mm USM III. Thank you

JustAnEngineer · Apr 23, 2011

Where are you finding your EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens lacking?

Do you shoot in situations where the larger aperture of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens would help? I like that I can take photographs indoors with this lens without a flash.

Have you considered the Tamron Di-II 17-50mm f/2.8 as a less expensive option?

bentcountershaft · Apr 23, 2011

If you don't need the 2.8 then get the 15-85. It has outstanding image quality, faster focusing than your kit lens and a really nice range. If you need the 2.8 and aren't made of money the Tamron as suggested above is a really nice lens.

kric2schaam626 · Apr 23, 2011

bentcountershaft said:
If you don't need the 2.8 then get the 15-85. It has outstanding image quality, faster focusing than your kit lens and a really nice range. If you need the 2.8 and aren't made of money the Tamron as suggested above is a really nice lens.

+1

redlazer · Apr 23, 2011

The quality of the picture of the 18-55 is lacking. I'm wanting a great all around general purpose lens. If I was to get the 17-55 eventually I would want to get a ultra wide or wide angle lens for some landscape pics, and was thinking if I go with the 15-85 that it would be able to cover the general purpose part and the wide angle part so two lens in one. Plus there is a big difference in 55mm and 85mm so the 15-85 would cover pics till the 85-300mm.

JustAnEngineer · Apr 24, 2011

It seems unlikely that you'll ever need to cover every single possible focal length. The gap between 17-55 and 70-200 isn't going to bother you much.

redlazer · Apr 27, 2011

Ok thank you all. I have another question tripods with ball head. I have been looking to get the Manfrotto 055 carbon fiber 3 section with the Q90 and the Hydrostatic Ball Head with RC4 Rapid Connect Plate. The tripod states it holds 17.64 lbs the ball heads says 35.27lbs. Is the 17.64 lbs the tripod holds able to handle up to a 400mm lens and camera? I can get both for around $600 which is cheaper than the cost of a Gitzo tripod alone. Another question is will that Monfrotto combo last me a life time, and does any one know if that tripod has spikes on the legs also? Thanks

analog.universe · Apr 27, 2011

I've just been doing a ton of tripod research myself... and my thought is, if you're willing to spend $600 and get a tripod that lasts, just spend the $800 and get the gitzo (with a really right stuff head?), especially if you're gonna put a 400 on it. : )

ymmv.

KmH · Apr 27, 2011

redlazer said:
....but quility of photos fade with very bright light. [sic]

Say what?

redlazer · Apr 27, 2011

analog.universe said:
I've just been doing a ton of tripod research myself... and my thought is, if you're willing to spend $600 and get a tripod that lasts, just spend the $800 and get the gitzo (with a really right stuff head?), especially if you're gonna put a 400 on it. : )

ymmv.

I would love to have that combo $800?? what Gitzo tripod and really right stuff ball head you going off of? The Gitzo I seen is GT3530ls $700 and RRS BH-40LR which holds 18lbs is $375 plus you have to buy the camera body quick release. so at lest $1100 is what you are looking at. I can't afford that any time soon. which is the reason I'm looking at Manfrotto. If I was to wait till 2012 I could get the GT3531ls or Gt 4331ls and the RRS BH-55.

redlazer · Apr 27, 2011

KmH said:
redlazer said:

....but quility of photos fade with very bright light. [sic]

Click to expand...

Say what?

I was talking about one of the 2 downsides of the 17-55mm lens. 1st downside is the price of the 17-55mm, the 2nd is the flaring with this lens. I may have said it wrong but this is what I was intending to say.