Debating between Canon Lenses

[onedayillknowbetter]

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!

 

[keith204]

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.

 

[onedayillknowbetter]

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.

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.

 

[Big Mike]

but I took my 17-55mm, and I wasn't entirely satisfied with my images, probably because the F stop on that lens.

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.

 

[onedayillknowbetter]

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.

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.

 

[memento]

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.

 

[Big Mike]

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.

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.

 

[JustAnEngineer]

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.