17-55 2.8 IS on a 300d? blush

Dubcat · Mar 27, 2009

Hi guys - I've been out of photography for quite a while and bouncing around a few ideas to get back in to it. One of my options is to upgrade my 300d with a 50d, using my existing 17-55 kit lens, 50mm 1.8 mk2 and sigma 70-300 lens (cheapy lens).

An alternative however would be to replace my 17-55kit lens with a 17-55 2.8 IS and keep the 300d until I can afford the 50d upgrade - could be a while.

What would you do? I have the imminent birth of twins ahead of me so most of my shooting will be of the kids. In the future i'd like to shoot landscapes and urban scenes so will eventually add a 10-22 to the fold.

Please advise

Dub.

jlynch · Mar 27, 2009

Speaking as a father of four I'd recommend saving your money while you can. Raising kids is an expensive proposition these days and before you know it, they'll be ready for college.

Speaking as a photographer I'd say go for the lens first.

--
Jeff Lynch
Serious Amateur Photography
http://jefflynchdev.wordpress.com

Dubcat · Mar 27, 2009

Hahaha I like your style

I figured this will be my last flourish of self indulgent spending. It's under the guise of, "but Im doing it for the kids honey!"

Ok thanks for the advice. I'll go for the lens. Now I need to decide between the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 24-70 2.8 L. That's a whole other story/thread

dub

Eric Haglund · Mar 27, 2009

I've always considered the body to just be a light tight box. Unless there's some body feature you really need, the 300d will probably serve you well until you need faster FPS, or better ISO performance.

I'd go for the lens. Look at the Sigma 18-50ex 2.8 Macro as well. It doesn't have IS but it performs very well.

--
Eric
http://www2.blogger.com/profile/00535987629594874175
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

lespurgeon · Mar 27, 2009

I use my son as justificaiton for all camera equipment purchases.

Agree, the 17-55 f/2.8 is the better way to go. That said, any chance of the 50D + a Tamron or Sigma 17-50 f/2.8? Sell the old body and old kit lens?

I shot my son's first 2 years with a 350D and a combinaiton of 24 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.8 primes. Worked very well for me. Having at least a f/2.8 was the important part.

jlynch · Mar 27, 2009

The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is really a superb lens and every bit "L Series" quality. Its not cheap but its a great general purpose lens.

--
Jeff Lynch
Serious Amateur Photography
http://jefflynchdev.wordpress.com

Dubcat · Mar 27, 2009

If the 24-70L 2.8 lens was an option would that be even better to get than the 17-55? Ultimately - below 24 would be covered by a 10-22 2.8 but that won't be for a while.

forbaz · Mar 27, 2009

40D + tamron (or sigma) 17-50 2.8 = ~$1250
50D (+using your current kit lens) = ~$1130
EFS 17-55IS (+using your 300D) = ~$1030

just from a quick look at amazon.

I would be rolling with option 1, as it gives you a great camera and lens package.
Option 2 and you're stuck with no so good glass.

Option 3 and you're stuck with a buffer that fills up too quick for shooting rapid pics of your kid and more noisy pics as you crank the ISO.

Good luck with what you choose.

--
Cheers, Forbaz
http://www.flickr.com/photos/markforbes/sets/

Brit · Mar 27, 2009

Assuming you’re looking at a budget of around $1,030 (the price of a 17-55IS) to $1,200 (a 50D) I have a couple of compromises you may want to consider:
1. 400D (going for $470) plus 35/2 ($270) – total = $740
2. 40D (going for $890) plus 35/2 ($270) – total = $1,160

I believe either system would be excellent - keep the lenses you currently have. The 35/2 will work very well most of the time for the first few years for the twins.
There are a lot of variations on the above that will also work.
Brit

Dubcat said:
Hi guys - I've been out of photography for quite a while and bouncing
around a few ideas to get back in to it. One of my options is to
upgrade my 300d with a 50d, using my existing 17-55 kit lens, 50mm
1.8 mk2 and sigma 70-300 lens (cheapy lens).

An alternative however would be to replace my 17-55kit lens with a
17-55 2.8 IS and keep the 300d until I can afford the 50d upgrade -
could be a while.

What would you do? I have the imminent birth of twins ahead of me so
most of my shooting will be of the kids. In the future i'd like to
shoot landscapes and urban scenes so will eventually add a 10-22 to
the fold.

Please advise

Dub.

--

limeaway · Mar 27, 2009

I had the same combination for about a year. Even with the limitations of the 300d I came out with some great shots. Regarding shooting toddlers/infants indoors....going above iso400 was generally too noisy for me. I was constantly dealing with slow shutter speeds. It was quite frustrating. I'm using a 40d now with the 17-55 2.8 IS and It's a heck of a lot better.

jasonpoly · Mar 27, 2009

An external flash that you can bounce would also be a very nice upgrade...

Dubcat · Mar 27, 2009

I have a sigma flash - but i can never get it to talk properly with the camera. For example with my kit lens it ALWAYS reports a zoom value of 50mm... I was thinking of buying the 580EX II.

funkag · Mar 27, 2009

You'll want all of the non-flash hand-holdability you can get when they're really little. I tried to avoid using the flash for the first 6 months or so. The wider angle could come in handy with two of 'em, too. Also, it's not nearly as big as the 24-70 (although big enough that my daughter was afraid of it for the first few months - I ended up using a p/s a lot).

--
http://photo.net/photos/funkag

MichaelOuellet · Mar 27, 2009

I had the same challenge of choosing between 17-55 2.8 IS and the 24-70 2.8 L.

My choice went for the 17-55 and I can confirm, few years after and thousands photos that it was the right thing to do.

The IS feature is important and the build quality of this lens is like a L lens. This lens become my most used lens.

--
Michael Ouellet
Quebec city, Canada
http://www.michael.volcan.ca/

timpdx · Mar 27, 2009

The 40D would be a huge upgrade from the 300D (I started with a 300D). I would pair it with a good used lens. The Tamron 28-75 is one excellent option, or the 17-50 if wider is your style. I sold an excellent Tamron 17-35 F2.8 for $250 recently. If you had any camera but the 300D, I would say keep your camera body and go all lens, but the 300D is 'crippled' enough to justify. I could not stand the start up delay and missed good shots because of it. Seriously consider gently used, like you see on fredmiranda, you can probably do a 40D and a decent lens for $8-900.

I sold my pretty well used 300D last year without an eyecup, for $200, I don't know the condition of your body. So figure that in.

The 40D is really, really a big step up from the 300D.
--
http://www.pixelmap.com

Peter 13 · Mar 27, 2009

I was in the same boat (350D instead of 300D), and went for the 17-55. No regrets. Only one downside - the AF system of 350D is not that great and sometimes misses the mark at f/2.8. Anyway, I will get the 60D as soon as it is released (not that there is anything wrong with the 50D).

I did not even consider the 24-70: (1) it is designed for FF, (2) no IS, (3) not as sharp - probably because of (1); and (4) - even heavier.

I have two minor complaints so far: the IS is less effective that that on the 18-55 IS (it might be me, since the 17-55 does not balance well on the 350D); and the 17-55 is too big and heavy. Despite this, it is a wonderful lens.

EdRubin · Mar 27, 2009

Dubcat said:
If the 24-70L 2.8 lens was an option would that be even better to get
than the 17-55? Ultimately - below 24 would be covered by a 10-22
2.8 but that won't be for a while.
--

Depends on your needs and style. I tried both the 17-55 and the 24-70L, and prefered the 24-70. It has more reach, better build, and I love the colors, contrast. Works great for indoor sports, were you can get close to the action.

The 17-55 is also a good lens, a little sharper in the center, IS, but I just prefered the build quality of the 24-70L, also my 17-55 suffered from the 'Dust Myth' after 5 days of indoor use. I know it doesn't affect image quality, but it was the final push for making a decision between the two lens.

My thoughts are to get a 70-200f2.8 IS, tried the non IS version from a friend, a must for indoor sports/activities with kids, like Hockey!!
Also the 10-22, since 17 isn't really that wide anyways.

Find a store that will let you try them out for a couple days, then you can have a more informed decision.

Regards,

--

Any man who brings a camera to a bachelor party may be legally killed and eaten by his fellow partygoers!

EdRubin

Dubcat · Mar 28, 2009

Thanks very much to everyone for their brilliant input. I decided to bite the bullet and buy a Canon 50d + 17-55 IS lens

Thanks again,
Dub

John Sheehy · Mar 28, 2009

Dubcat said:
I have a sigma flash - but i can never get it to talk properly with
the camera. For example with my kit lens it ALWAYS reports a zoom
value of 50mm...

Mostly irrelevant with bounce flash, or diffused flash.

--
John

firedog · Mar 28, 2009

LENS

LENS

LENS

Camera technology changes so often, two years from now you will be able to get the 50d for under $1000. But buying a lens is an investment for a long time.

Plus I want to add I had cheap lenses for years, and finially got the 17-55mm. It was the best decision I ever made in this hobby. That Lens is just amazing.....

17-55 2.8 IS on a 300d? *blush*

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Leading Member

New member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts

17-55 2.8 IS on a 300d? blush