EOS 60D with.....

Started Feb 15, 2013 | Discussions thread
Sovern
Contributing MemberPosts: 907
Like?
Re: EOS 60D with.....
In reply to skanter, Feb 18, 2013

skanter wrote:

Sovern wrote:

skanter wrote:

Sovern wrote:

skanter wrote:

Sovern wrote:

skanter wrote:

Sovern wrote:

skanter wrote:

Sovern wrote:

skanter wrote:

Sovern wrote:

skanter wrote:

Sovern wrote:

Personally I would not get the Canon 17-55 2.8 USM lens. I think that it's overpriced and that it's wide end can be made up with the excellent Canon 10-22 lens.

I would get the Canon 24-70L USM I for around the same price as you will find the Canon 17-55 USM.

The Canon 17-55's build quality leaves a lot to be desired whereas the 24-70's build does not.

I feel as though the 24-70 range is excellent on crop body and for indoor events would be the perfect focal range to work with and if you need it get yourself a 10-22 for those wide angle shots when needed.

Personally though I'd stray away from investing all of your money into EF-S lenses. One day you might want to go FF which is just another reason to get the 24-70L.

Another thing, if you're going to get yourself a 17-50 lens save yourself money and get the Tamron non VC for $390 brand new. Same build quality and practically same optically quality as the much more expensive and over priced plastic Canon 17-55 2.8 which costs $1,000 brand new.

I have both the 17-55 and the 10-22, and they are totally different catagories of lenses and should not be compared. The 17-55 is a walkaround with stellar optics, perfect for low-light indoor shooting with IS, and for portraits with nice isolation at 2.8. People are glad to pay for this lens for the combination of all these features. Its also a great lens for video with its constant aperture. . The 10-22 is a specialized SWA lens used for landscapes, and other shots if an unusual perspective is desired. It does not make a great walkaround lens.

24-70 is too long for a crop body and doesnt have IS - hardly a replacement for the 17-55 on a crop body.

-- hide signature --

Sam K., NYC

I disagree.

I used the Tamron 17-50 for 3 months before selling it for a Canon 85 1.8.

24-70 is hardly long on crop body.

I was giving him a pair of lenses that he could use (10-22 & 24-70.... both when we can afford it but 24-70 first) as 17mm might not be wide enough for some indoor work if you shoot weddings or events at all as some rooms are small and will require wider than 17mm.

I constantly found myself zooming to 50mm on my Tamron and finding it too short, hence why I bought the 85 1.8.

I think that the 24-70 would be an excellent outdoor walk around lens.

IS isn't really needed for him as he's photographing kids which tend to move fast.

Most photographers including me use a minimum shutter speed of 1/160 when photographing any form of portraiture (even subtle movements can cause blur at anything less than or much lower than 1/160) which would completely nullify any advantage IS would give on the 17-55 lens.

I also found the perspective that 17mm gives to look terrible.....if I have to shoot a landscape I'd much prefer to step back and zoom in as much as possible vs using 17mm or wider.

10-22 is a specialty lens though and only should be purchased if hes shooting events but his first choice should be 24-70 imo.

Canon 17-55 is a cheaply built plastic lens for a lens that costs $1,000. 24-70 is a solid.

While not as rugged as the 24-70, the 17-55 is hardly "cheaply built". In fact, it has exactly the same build quality as the 10-22 that you recommend highly.

Each to his own, but I'd far prefer a 17-55 focal length with IS to a 24-70 without IS as a walkaround. I like the 17mm perspective and find it extremely useful, and IS can be lifesaver indoors.

-- hide signature --

Sam K., NYC

I don;t recommend the 10-22 "highly" I recommend it as a crop body speciality lens that should be used only 1% of the time (in close corridors indoors shooting weddings or other events).

A lens that would be planted on my body 90% of the time or more I want to be rugged. The 17-55 is definitely a cheaply built lens for one costing $1,000. My Canon 85 1.8 is built to way higher standards and is way more rugged than that $1,000 lens.

If hes shooting kids or people IS will be of no use either.

Let's see, you said the 10-22 was "excellent" and made no mention of its build quality, while the 17-55 is "cheaply built". IS is of no use because " he's shooting people", as if he will never shoot anything else that isn't movimg? 17mm "looks terrible", and 24mm coukd not be considered too long on a crop body? 24-70 is perfect for a walkaround - as long as you add the 10-22 for wide shots.

I guess you must be right about everything - or maybe you'll rationalize anything to make your point.

-- hide signature --

Sam K., NYC

It's excellent for what it is, a specialty lens thats used indoors. I don;t even use the lens nor have it but know for a fact there will be times indoors when 17mm will be too tight and 10-15mm will be needed.

You're also forgetting the fact that the 10-22 is about half the cost of the 17-55.

If he's shooting things that are not moving why not use a bipod/tripod? You will be able to go way lower than you would with IS only.

I think that you're more upset that you have a $1,000 lens that is made out of plastic. Can't blame you for trying to justify your purchase.

This is why I recommend the Tamron. Only $390 yet it does everything the Canon 17-55 can do and is an all around excellent lens with the same build quality and no zoom creep unlike the Canon.

$390 for a plastic lens is acceptable. For $1,000 not so much in my book.

You are fast and loose with your facts. B&h price is $839 for 10-22, $1029 for 17-35. Does that sound like "half the price" to you? These lenses are both solidly built and fine for the many thousands of users who love them - including me. The idea of "plastic" vs "metal" has been argued ad nauseum. My 60D is made of plastic and is just as durable as the older, heavier, metal bodies. People have stopped trying to make that stupid argument. Use a tripod instead of IS - brilliant idea, if you carry a tripod around with you wherever you go.

By the way, what planet do you live on?

-- hide signature --

Sam K., NYC

B&H is overcharging for the lens. You can get it brand new right now for $600.

60D is not as durable as the older *0D bodys by the way. A metal body can take more abuse as well as a metal reinforced lens.

I think you're just upset.

Where do you get the 10-22 for $600? On eBay? You can get the 17-55 for less too if youre willing to buy from a less reputable dealer. I use B&H, Adorama and Amazon as reliable dealers - price is the same on all three.

As I said, I dont shoot in war zones, and never dropped a camera or lens in over 40 years of doing photography - so metal bodies and lenses are not a big issue for me. Lighter bodies and lenses are more important for me. Some people have had some dust issues with the 17-55, but it doesnt affect image quality. So far, no dust in mine. BTW, i think $1000 is too much for the 17-55, thats why I bought it used for 40% less.

I do get peeved when people throw around facts and opinions without much thought or insight, and with several contradictions, which IMO you have been doing in this thread. Ive tried to point out where youve been doing this, but Im not getting through...

-- hide signature --

Sam K., NYC

I have not made any posts with contradictions or without insight. You seem to be posting off of emotion rather than logic as almost anyone would agree that a $390 brand new Tamron 17-50 2.8 that does 90% if not more of what the $1,000 Canon 17-55 2.8 IS would be a better choice for the money ($390 vs $1,000)

This is the main discussion that we're talking about here bottom line and there are no contradictions with my recommendations.

You're just upset that I said that the 17-55 is a cheaply built lens which it is. Even for $600 used it's still a bad buy in my opinion.

You are entiled to your opinion, but based on what I've read, it is not based on facts, but on your strange biases. You do not like wide angle lenses, you think one should carry around a tripod all the time so you have no use for stabelized lenses (IS, OS, VC), you think all lenses made of "plastic" are "cheaply built" (except for the 10-22 which you call "excellent"), you throw prices out of a hat without mentioning who is selling it. You are advising the OP not to get a 17-55 2.8, but to get a 24-70, a 10-22, an 85 1.8 and carry a tripod as there will be no IS.

The 17-55 is the best zoom lens made for crop cameras, and the reviews and users (check out the 9.1 rating on hundreds of Fred Miranda reviewers) love the lens, and were happy to pay the price as there is nothing that matches it. Certainly not the Tamron 17-50, which is a nice budget lens, but has no stabelization, no full manual control, mechanical and field curvature distortion issues. But if you think you got a great deal - enjoy. Ill just have to suffer along with my crappy 17-55 2.8.

-- hide signature --

Sam K., NYC

Sovern wrote:

You're incorrect that I think anything.

I rest my case, and am finished with this thread...

-- hide signature --

Sam K., NYC

Good I'm tired of debating with someone that is so held up with their own emotions and is argumentative.

In case you didn't get my quotation I don't think anything I rely on logic & experience to carry me to suggestions.

Have fun shooting indoor tennis without flash btw, keep machine gunning that shutter like they did at the Olympics LOL :).

I'm out as well OP got all of the advice he needs.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow