Need Advice On A Second Lens.

photoguy622 said:

rhone said:

you want wider...any reason you're not considering the 10-22? I'm a big fan of the 17-40, but 10-22 will get as wide as you'd ever want.

Click to expand...

I saw that lens and was attracted to it's 10mm view, but I did not like it's lack of IS. I figured I could lose the 5mm and gain the IS on the 15-85mm lens or lose 7mm on the 17-40mm and gain the L lens. I was seduced by the red ring

Click to expand...

Lack of IS is not something you get on UWA, there are no UWA lenses with IS. Most likely (there was recent thread) because IS will not be very effective at such short focal lengths - you can hand hold these lenses with 1/10 or so. IS works best on longer focal lengths.
Therefore, lack of IS is not a factor to decide against an UWA.

10-22 or 15-85 are just two very different focal ranges, and that is what has to guide your decision.

So, you could think:
10-22 and 28-135 as your setup or

15-85 and 55-250 (or 70-200, depending on how much you want to spend) as your setup (and selling the 28-135)

--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©

15-85 mm is just about the perfect general purpose range, and with four-stop IS and Ring USM this lens should have been a no-brainer for me. But one thing put me off, and that was f/5.6 at the long end. So I'm still waiting for the 15-70 f/4 which will probably never happen :-(

I agree with all those who have argued against the 17-40L. There are far better ways to spend that sort of money for a crop camera.

I agree too with the recommendation to look at the 17-55/2.8 IS. Basically it's a choice between the versatility and decent image quality of the 15-85, against the speed and even better IQ of the 17-55.

The funny thing is, right now I have neither because I bought a Sigma 18-50/2.8 when that was all I could afford, and I like the smaller size and closer focusing so much that I don't want to part with it.

IS is what you need in museums. I used the 18-55IS in lots of museums in Rome last summer, and I was better off than if I had a fast lens. The f2.8 might help in photos of people, but better IS is more important.

Faster lenses are most useful if you want natural light photos, but f2.8 is slow for that.

arty H said:

IS is what you need in museums. I used the 18-55IS in lots of museums in Rome last summer, and I was better off than if I had a fast lens. The f2.8 might help in photos of people, but better IS is more important.

Faster lenses are most useful if you want natural light photos, but f2.8 is slow for that.

Click to expand...

You're not the first person to say that, and you won't be the last, but it depends what you're shooting. For static subjects in low light, the 18-55 IS is superb - and IS always beats aperture when you need depth of field.

But equally there are situations where f/2.8 is more important than IS, and it's nonsense to say that "f/2.8 is too slow for that" - it depends on the circumstances.

So sometimes you need one, and sometimes you need the other - and the 17-55 has both . The 15-85 doesn't.

Steve Balcombe said:

arty H said:

IS is what you need in museums. I used the 18-55IS in lots of museums in Rome last summer, and I was better off than if I had a fast lens. The f2.8 might help in photos of people, but better IS is more important.

Faster lenses are most useful if you want natural light photos, but f2.8 is slow for that.

Click to expand...

You're not the first person to say that, and you won't be the last, but it depends what you're shooting. For static subjects in low light, the 18-55 IS is superb - and IS always beats aperture when you need depth of field.

But equally there are situations where f/2.8 is more important than IS, and it's nonsense to say that "f/2.8 is too slow for that" - it depends on the circumstances.

So sometimes you need one, and sometimes you need the other - and the 17-55 has both . The 15-85 doesn't.

Click to expand...

Steve, I agree completely with both of your last two posts even down to buying the Sigma 18-55mm f2.8 macro. I'm constantly rotating the mid-range lens in my basic kit between this Sigma and a couple either the 17-85mm or 28-135mm Canon IS zooms depending on anticipated needs of the day.

Quite often I feel that the advantage of a large aperture is negated by its having too narrow a DOF but when you need large aperture, you need it. Different tools for different jobs.

yes get the very good gen purpose 15-85
and a 50 1.8...
you will need a lo light shooter sometimes..
and that will fit anywhere...

with the 15-85 you get width, reach and I.S. for reduced light shots (museums etc)

this is based on your decision to not get any other lenses for a while

TOM

I also got the 7d kit.
The only other lens I bought was the EF-S 10-22mm.

Going from 15mm down to 10mm really makes a difference.

I was in the Garden district of New Orleans recently with the 10-22 taking pictures of massive houses. That 10mm came in real handy, you'd be amazed.

Its also great for taking shots indoors, you can get the whole room.

Anyway, thats what I did.

Next on my list is a macro lens which will double as a portrait lens, then a telephoto, then a real fast portrait lens.

FunkyELF said:

I also got the 7d kit.
The only other lens I bought was the EF-S 10-22mm.

Going from 15mm down to 10mm really makes a difference.

I was in the Garden district of New Orleans recently with the 10-22 taking pictures of massive houses. That 10mm came in real handy, you'd be amazed.

Its also great for taking shots indoors, you can get the whole room.

Anyway, thats what I did.

Next on my list is a macro lens which will double as a portrait lens, then a telephoto, then a real fast portrait lens.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. The 10mm is a great wide angle. I wish I had enough $$ for a bunch of lenses. Too bad I spent so much on the camera

Joe Photo Lover said:

Steve Balcombe said:

arty H said:

IS is what you need in museums. I used the 18-55IS in lots of museums in Rome last summer, and I was better off than if I had a fast lens. The f2.8 might help in photos of people, but better IS is more important.

Faster lenses are most useful if you want natural light photos, but f2.8 is slow for that.

Click to expand...

You're not the first person to say that, and you won't be the last, but it depends what you're shooting. For static subjects in low light, the 18-55 IS is superb - and IS always beats aperture when you need depth of field.

But equally there are situations where f/2.8 is more important than IS, and it's nonsense to say that "f/2.8 is too slow for that" - it depends on the circumstances.

So sometimes you need one, and sometimes you need the other - and the 17-55 has both . The 15-85 doesn't.

Click to expand...

Steve, I agree completely with both of your last two posts even down to buying the Sigma 18-55mm f2.8 macro. I'm constantly rotating the mid-range lens in my basic kit between this Sigma and a couple either the 17-85mm or 28-135mm Canon IS zooms depending on anticipated needs of the day.

Quite often I feel that the advantage of a large aperture is negated by its having too narrow a DOF but when you need large aperture, you need it. Different tools for different jobs.

Click to expand...

I've got say I'm really leaning towards the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. It's got the constant large aperture and IS. Sounds like, except for the price, you can't go wrong.

photoguy622 said:

I've got say I'm really leaning towards the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. It's got the constant large aperture and IS. Sounds like, except for the price, you can't go wrong.

Click to expand...

Well there is one other issue. This lens has been widely criticized for its rapid accumulation of dust in the lens. While the dust rarely seems to cause image quality problems it can be disconcerting for a lens in its price range. To be fair, I have never known anyone to return the lens because the dust got so bad but it is possible. I don't want to steer this threat into a dust discussion. I suggest you do a search to see some of the many posts on this issue.