17-55 VS Sigma 30 1.4 + Canon 50 1.8 + Canon 80 1.8

After MUCH reading and consideration, these are the two choices I have narrowed my next purchases down to. The prime route would save me approximately $400.00. I already have the 50 1.8.

Please don't introduce any other lenses into the equation. I'm done researching damn it ! I SWEAR I am! : -)

Which choice makes the most sense to you and why?

If you only shoot where you have plenty of time to change lenses between shots, don't need wider than the 30mm, and need longer than 55, the three-prime route may be a good option. But most of us like to be able to change focul length quickly and to fine-tune the focul length without having to try and get closer/further.

But the big question is the type of subject: one of your options gives you 17-55 and the other gives you 30-80, which is a huge difference at the wide end. Maybe get the Sigma 20mm f1.8 instead of the 30 f1.4? (The Sigma 20mm is big, slow focusing, and a pain to switch between manual and auto-focusing, but very sharp above about f2.2.)
--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com

I like primes, too, but I don't like changing lenses, carrying a bag full of them, and camera shake.

I like to shoot in dodgy light, but I don't like messing with a tripod.

So it depends a lot on your typical shooting situation.

Will you miss good shot opportunities because you don't have the right lens on the camera at the critical moment?

Will you miss good shot opportunities because you are fumbling with a tripod when you could be shooting with IS?

For me, the answer is easy.

Having zoom lets me adjust both framing and perspective to get it "just right". Having primes is a lot like having a tripod and no IS. You end up settling for something that's "close, but not ideal" in many situations.

If you don't have zoom, then when you find that perfect shooting position that gives you just the perspective you're after, you cannot frame it just right. Or if you find a shooting position that gives the framing you want, then the perspective is not perfect.

With a zoom, you can adjust both things infinitely, and get just what you really want.

And without IS, there are times when you really want to shoot under fading light, perhaps at a smaller aperture to get deep DOF, but with a tripod, you won't have time to find that "just right" shooting position before the sunset is gone. With IS, on the other hand, you could move around a lot, testing different shooting positions and different focal lengths and hopefully get things just right before the light fades, and still be able to shoot at a reasonable ISO, with a smaller aperture for good DOF, and still have things steady.

So for me, the far more useful lens setup would be the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

Those primes are nice. And they'd be great to have in your arsenal. I can see a lot of good use for them all.

But the IS, zoom, and fairly large, constant f/2.8 of the 17-55 f/2.8 IS make it a really flexible tool in my opinion.

--
Jim H.

I was trying to save money too, So I bought the combo of 30 1.4 and 17-85mm and spare the money to buy the flash, I use the 17-85 for everything and change to 30 1.4 when I need it . I was happy, but then I found a mint condition 17-55 for $700 on Craigslist, I decide to buy it and thinking to myself, If I don't like it, I can sale it back for the same price. So, here is my conclusion after using the 17-55, I should have buy the 17-55 in the first place. BTW, The combo is very good but changing lens and the IS at all focal length is really nice. Good luck

StrangeWorld said:

After MUCH reading and consideration, these are the two choices I
have narrowed my next purchases down to. The prime route would save
me approximately $400.00. I already have the 50 1.8.

Please don't introduce any other lenses into the equation. I'm done
researching damn it ! I SWEAR I am! : -)

Which choice makes the most sense to you and why?

Click to expand...

hdngo1 said:

I was trying to save money too, So I bought the combo of 30 1.4 and
17-85mm and......but I found a 17-55 for $700 on Craigslist......after using the
17-55, I should have buy the 17-55 in the first place.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. I have bought & sold over 17+ lens before I finally settled on the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. My first tought is exactly what you state: I SHOULD HAVE BOUGHT THIS LENS FIRST. It would have save me lots of money and time. I found out the hard way that going-cheap-ends-up-costing-me-more. Now, I buy quality optics. A lesson learned.

I am also voting for zooms .

"Zooming with your feet" .. yes , yes , works sometimes, but not that often really. Indoors you can not walk through walls . On mountain walks you must stay on the narrow path... if you can not zoom with your wings.

Not to mention windy and dusty places where it is not nice to swap lenses. And IS ! a great + IMO
--
Kari
SLR photography for 40 years
60°15´N 24°03´ E

007peter said:

hdngo1 said:

I was trying to save money too, So I bought the combo of 30 1.4 and
17-85mm and......but I found a 17-55 for $700 on Craigslist......after using the
17-55, I should have buy the 17-55 in the first place.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. I have bought & sold over 17+ lens before I
finally settled on the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. My first tought is
exactly what you state: I SHOULD HAVE BOUGHT THIS LENS FIRST. It
would have save me lots of money and time. I found out the hard way
that going-cheap-ends-up-costing-me-more. Now, I buy quality optics.
A lesson learned.

Click to expand...

007peter, At least we got to try different lens , I actually bought most my lens on Craigslist, So, I don't lost any money or it is very small amount, the key is, I am very patient and wait for the good price, and sale back with the same price if I don't like it. Happy shooting

I really get tired of seeing the phrase "zoom with your feet", too.

Clearly, you can't actually do that, and it's silly and misleading to suggest that you can. New photographers need to be aware of the serious flaw in that "logic".

Moving your position does NOT change the focal length of the lens. And that means that as you adjust the framing with your movement, you're also changing the perspective with no control over it.

So you are stuck with either getting the framing you want or getting the perspective you want, but rarely both.

And as you point out, there are many times when moving (even if only to adjust framing) is either impractical or impossible.

Framing that distant landscape the way you want might require a "foot zoom" of a few hundred miles.

And trying to squeeze in a whole room full of people might require breaking out a wall and then moving out into the yard.

While I do appreciate and use primes, a zoom is certainly a much more powerful tool that allows for more optimized composition.

--
Jim H.

Thanks everyone. Except for the occasional complaint about flare and or dust, I seem to read nothing but glowing reviews on the 17-55. I think I may be joining the zoom club in the not too distant future.

It should be fun! I've been a serious amature, on and off, for goin' on 30 years now and have NEVER used anything but the Canon 50mm 1.8 Mark I.

I did it for several years when i bought my first slr Zenit-E with a Helios 50mm lens. Fantastic combo - and never ran out of batteries. It was totally mechanic without any.
That was about 40 years ago.

Zooms were quite good already some 20 years ago - you are not a person who follows trends too fast ; )

At the moment my favorite zoom combo is 10-22 + 24-105. Sometimes is use a 60mm macro or my 50f1,4 - but only on special occasions. Zooms are so convenient and IQ is great nowadays. 17-55 was one option ( very good!) , but i took this version of zooms - i had luck with prices .
But really - photography really is a black hole where money disappears.
--
Kari
SLR photography for 40 years
60°15´N 24°03´ E

I just became a member of the 17-55 f/2.8 IS at Christmas.
Like others have said, it's all that.

But this is because of your own prime selection. The selection of those primes are more in line with a 24-70L then a 17-55IS.So if that is your range and you want a zoom, the 24-70L is the one you should consider (or a 28-70L, or a tamron 28-75 2.8).

I have a 24-70L, it is an excellent lens, perfect for portraits on a xxD. But it is not my only lens. On a limited budget I would also recommend the 17-55IS for now. Add that (terrific) 85mm later.

Rob.

--
'Life is funny but not Ha Ha funny. Peculiar I guess'. (Mr. E.)

JimH said:

I really get tired of seeing the phrase "zoom with your feet", too.

Clearly, you can't actually do that, and it's silly and misleading to
suggest that you can. New photographers need to be aware of the
serious flaw in that "logic".

Moving your position does NOT change the focal length of the lens.
And that means that as you adjust the framing with your movement,
you're also changing the perspective with no control over it.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the problems with new photographers is the opposite. They zoom to get the frame they want without considering the different perspective that zoom position gives them. The bigger the zoom range the bigger the problem. Now, with primes one is forced to stop and think.
A lens like the tri-elmar is actually the best solution I guess
Canon, can you give us a 20/50/80mm tri-L 2.0 IS please?

Rob.
--
'Life is funny but not Ha Ha funny. Peculiar I guess'. (Mr. E.)

I have both setups and use them according to what I have too shot. On my first wedding I used the 17-55 only indoors with flash for about 10% of the total I shot that day. For the rest of the wedding I mainly used the 30mm and 85mm (85% of the shots) because during the wedding ceremony and in the church I used the available light and needed primes for that.

When shooting my kids I use the zoom often when they move, otherwise for portraits or when they are just playing, I mostly use the primes.

Maybe another solution is to combine the choices into: Sigma 30, Canon 50mm, Canon 85 and Tamron 17-50. This will cost just a bit more than a single Canon 17-55 but will give you maximum flexibility.

Thanks DFBB.

Just to let you know I went with the 17-55f2.8IS lens myself. I think this lens would be a "L" lens if it wasn't an EF_S series lens. My choices was the 17-55 or th e24-702.8L I will eventually get the 24-70 but I really like the 17-55 and it works for me I only have a gap between the 55 and the 70mm range of my 70-200mmf2.8LIS. I have a 18-200 3.5-5.6 coming and I got everything covered from 17mm to the 1.6*500mm of my Sigma 170-500mm lens it isn't a fat lens but not to many of them are in that range. Ther one thing the 17-55 gave me that the 24-70 wouldn't was the extra wide angle portion and with a sub full frame sensor body WA is hard to really get. I will get a FF body for WA stuff down the line.