|
17-55 EF-S
In reply to YankeeZephyr,
6 months ago
|
The recommended alternative to the 24-105 lens is the 24-70 or 24 f/1.4. The recommended alternative for the 17-40 and 16-35 lenses, for those who can use EF-S lenses, is the 17-55 f/2.8. The thing that's lacking with the 24-105 is the f/4 relative aperture. It's nice for landscapes and still-life, but not for everything else, not when you could have f/2.8 or f/1.4 for the same price. The 17-85 lens, although good and something I just used tonight, is not an "L" lens. If you want the quality of an "L" lens, you need to buy an "L" lens. The 17-40 f/4 is highly recommended, depending on what you need it for.
Your stated purposes, unless you plan to get wet and throw around your lens outdoors, suggest that the 17-55 f/2.8 would be a good choice.
http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
| Post (hide subjects) | Posted by | When | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 months ago | 2 | ||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago |