Convince me which lens to buy (for Canon 50D)

JClishe · Jan 1, 2011

I need a new lens. The widest lens I have now is my 28-135 kit lens, and I need something wider. I also want a fast lens, as I want to be able to use it indoor in low light situations. I am beginning to get more seriously involved in urban exploration, where I need to be able to shoot wide and in low light. And besides that, I just need something wider and faster than my kit lens.

Originally I capped my budget at $500. But now I'm thinking that instead of capping my budget and needing or wanting to upgrade to a better lens at some point in the future, I'd rather put all options on the table, at all prices, and make the best long term decision so I won't need to buy another wide / fast lens later. I'd rather buy it once and do it right; basically switch this from a "purchase" to an "investment".

So here are the options I've come up with, and my concerns for each. At this point I'm an open book and would appreciate any thoughts or comments that could help me to make a decision. I'm sure there are considerations that I haven't thought of yet.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
Concerned that it may not be fast enough

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8
If this wasn't an EF-S I think I'd be all over it. My main concern is that it breaks my "buy once and do it right" concept by not being compatible with a full frame, in case I ever went that route. On the other hand, maybe I shouldn't worry about what kind of camera I may or may not buy in the future.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L
Concerned that it may not be wide enough and I'd still eventually need something wider. On the other hand, it goes all the way to up my 70-300mm, so these 2 would replace my 28-135mm and I'd have 24-300 covered with 2 lenses. Each of the other lenses that I list here still leave a gap before I get to my 70-300mm.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L
Concerned that it may not be long enough and therefore too limited. Also definitely getting to the high end of my budget comfort zone.

Logically the 24-70 seems to make the most sense and offer the most versatility. However, the reviews for the 16-35 are pretty amazing and I can't help but wonder if this lens would open up new photographic options. It seems to be an addictive lens to shoot with based on its reviews. But yikes, it is expensive.

Any thoughts?

nahtanoj · Jan 1, 2011

i have the 17-40 L and it's a great lens. i really like it, i really love shooting with it and has been my most used lens for a couple of years. with that being said, i am eying the 16-35mm 2.8 because the 17-40 is not as fast as i'd like.
i'd personally go for the 16-35 out of your choices. if you want a wide angle, it is your best bet.

cfusionpm · Jan 1, 2011

I was in your exact same shoes about a year ago. I ended up going with the 17-55 2.8 IS because of the more usable range for a crop body (I use the wide end a good amount), and that it had IS with an f/2.8 aperture. Kind of an it-has-it-all normal zoom lens for a crop body. My final justification was to buy a lens for the camera I have now so I can use it how it should be. Not buy one for a camera I might get in the future but have to deal with the compromises now.

Some people look down on EF-S because you can't use them on FFs. Instead, I look at them and think "Sweet, I can now take advantage of more suitable focal ranges and high end optics on my crop body."

KmH · Jan 1, 2011

Since your camera has a 1.6x crop sensor none of those lenses are very wide at their shortest focal length.

16 mm has equivelent FOV of 25.6 mm.

cfusionpm · Jan 1, 2011

All of them are wider than 28mm on a 1.6 crop though..... (nearly 45mm equiv FOV).

bigtwinky · Jan 1, 2011

If one of your primary goals is low light photography, seriously look into the fast primes, like the 50 1.4
A shot at 1/30 f/2.8 on those $1500+ primes will be 1/120 at f/1.4 which is essential to freeze motionn

Garbz · Jan 1, 2011

If you need convincing then you don't need any of those lenses

Most lens purchases are more along the lines of you need the lens and no one can convince you otherwise :lol:

JClishe · Jan 1, 2011

Garbz said:
If you need convincing then you don't need any of those lenses

Most lens purchases are more along the lines of you need the lens and no one can convince you otherwise

Solid point. I need a lens wider than my current 28, no one can convince me otherwise of that. I'm simply coming to this forum for help deciding between the available options. Fair?

cfusionpm · Jan 1, 2011

I stand firm on 17-55mm if you want to try and replace the 28-135 as your "normal" lens. If you want to compliment it, a 10-22mm would be another excellent choice.