Which Lens

Matblack · 14-05-2010, 10:44

OK

Obviously I'm going to be taking a lot of photos of Roo over the next few years and although the Sigma 17-70 is OK it can be a little bit slow to focus and miss the focus at times, particularly in low light situations.

I have found that the better candids I have done have been with no flash and this pushes me towards a faster lens, the 50mm prime is good and I'll keep it but I need to be a long way away to get a wide enough shot for it to useful so I'm looking at something with 17/18mm at the wide end maybe up to 40/50mm.

Canon 17-40 is f4 which is a little slow maybe
Canon 17-55 2.8 IS dust pump is a possibility and these are coming up a little cheaper these days
There is a Tamron with VC and 2.8 I think which sounds OK

Budget is ideally under £500 but I am happy to spend less, any ideas?

MB

SCM · 14-05-2010, 12:38

Reading some of the reviews for the Canon Lens on Warehouse Express from customers who have bought them and a lot prefer the 17-55mm Lens over the 17-40mm L. The gist I got from the reviews is the only reason the 17-55mm wasn't an L from the reviewers is it is an EF-S fitting and didn't have the weather sealing. The IS will help for low light shooting which is probably another reason to look at this Lens over the L.

Matblack · 14-05-2010, 14:04

It's more expensive then I really want, I really must get around to borrowing the father in laws one to see if I like it.

MB

SCM · 19-05-2010, 13:44

Sorry for not replying sooner MB got busy but maybe drop Kerso an email on either ebay or through talkphotography and see if he can do you a cheaper deal than the main camera shops.

Matblack · 19-05-2010, 19:08

I saw a 28mm f2.8 prime on TP today which I think will be a nice addition for baby stuff and I really like my 50mm albeit a little long for indoors, £100 from Mr Sukebe who I trust so I thought I would give it a try

Still fancy the 17-55mm though

MB

Toby · 21-05-2010, 07:54

Don't regret getting 17-55 for a second, although it is quite pricey.

Matblack · 21-05-2010, 12:26

28mm f2.8 arrived today, I'll be having a play with it over the weekend.

Right now with only two pay days until financial meltdown I don't think I can afford the 17-55mm as much as I would like to. I'm hoping the 17-70, 50mm and 28mm lenses will be enough for indoor and ourdoor portraits. I could sell the 70-200 f4 to put towards the 17-55 but I'm too fond of it and I'm sure I'll want it for zoos and events when we take her out and about

MB

Toby · 22-05-2010, 21:34

Well the 17-70 is hardly "lacking"

If it'd kept mine then I may well not have upgraded to the 17-55, it was more my ill-judged move to the Sigma 24-60 that did it as I was never very happy with it.

14-05-2010, 10:44	#1
Matblack Baby Bore Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Svalbard Posts: 9,770	Which Lens OK Obviously I'm going to be taking a lot of photos of Roo over the next few years and although the Sigma 17-70 is OK it can be a little bit slow to focus and miss the focus at times, particularly in low light situations. I have found that the better candids I have done have been with no flash and this pushes me towards a faster lens, the 50mm prime is good and I'll keep it but I need to be a long way away to get a wide enough shot for it to useful so I'm looking at something with 17/18mm at the wide end maybe up to 40/50mm. Canon 17-40 is f4 which is a little slow maybe Canon 17-55 2.8 IS dust pump is a possibility and these are coming up a little cheaper these days There is a Tamron with VC and 2.8 I think which sounds OK Budget is ideally under £500 but I am happy to spend less, any ideas? MB __________________ "we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossom had fallen from our branches we found that we were one tree and not two"

14-05-2010, 12:38	#2
SCM As endorsed by Mr Black Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Hell/Scotland take your pick Posts: 443	Reading some of the reviews for the Canon Lens on Warehouse Express from customers who have bought them and a lot prefer the 17-55mm Lens over the 17-40mm L. The gist I got from the reviews is the only reason the 17-55mm wasn't an L from the reviewers is it is an EF-S fitting and didn't have the weather sealing. The IS will help for low light shooting which is probably another reason to look at this Lens over the L. __________________ The sun is rising The screams have gone Too many have fallen Few still stand tall Is this the ending of what we've begun? Will we remember what we've done wrong? Last edited by SCM; 14-05-2010 at 12:40.

14-05-2010, 14:04	#3
Matblack Baby Bore Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Svalbard Posts: 9,770	It's more expensive then I really want, I really must get around to borrowing the father in laws one to see if I like it. MB __________________ "we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossom had fallen from our branches we found that we were one tree and not two"

19-05-2010, 13:44	#4
SCM As endorsed by Mr Black Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Hell/Scotland take your pick Posts: 443	Sorry for not replying sooner MB got busy but maybe drop Kerso an email on either ebay or through talkphotography and see if he can do you a cheaper deal than the main camera shops. __________________ The sun is rising The screams have gone Too many have fallen Few still stand tall Is this the ending of what we've begun? Will we remember what we've done wrong?

19-05-2010, 19:08	#5
Matblack Baby Bore Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Svalbard Posts: 9,770	I saw a 28mm f2.8 prime on TP today which I think will be a nice addition for baby stuff and I really like my 50mm albeit a little long for indoors, £100 from Mr Sukebe who I trust so I thought I would give it a try Still fancy the 17-55mm though MB __________________ "we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossom had fallen from our branches we found that we were one tree and not two"

21-05-2010, 07:54	#6
Toby Absinthe Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,023	Don't regret getting 17-55 for a second, although it is quite pricey. __________________

21-05-2010, 12:26	#7
Matblack Baby Bore Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Svalbard Posts: 9,770	28mm f2.8 arrived today, I'll be having a play with it over the weekend. Right now with only two pay days until financial meltdown I don't think I can afford the 17-55mm as much as I would like to. I'm hoping the 17-70, 50mm and 28mm lenses will be enough for indoor and ourdoor portraits. I could sell the 70-200 f4 to put towards the 17-55 but I'm too fond of it and I'm sure I'll want it for zoos and events when we take her out and about MB __________________ "we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossom had fallen from our branches we found that we were one tree and not two"

22-05-2010, 21:34	#8
Toby Absinthe Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,023	Well the 17-70 is hardly "lacking" If it'd kept mine then I may well not have upgraded to the 17-55, it was more my ill-judged move to the Sigma 24-60 that did it as I was never very happy with it. __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode