Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,770

    Thinking about 17-55 IS ... what to trade?

    OK, after 1 wedding and 3 or 4 E-Sessions - and more of both on the horizon, I'm definitely seeing the need for a faster and wider IS zoom.

    My main issue; the f4 lacks the bokeh blur to get rid of unsightly backgrounds and it's blur is distracting - also I have to switch lenses to get a nice WA shot. I like using above 55mm, but I have 2 bodies and the 2nd generally has the 70-200 or a prime mounted. For that matter; I plan on selling the 50 to trade up to an 85 f1.8.

    The 24-105 is really handy but when it comes to "what lens to mount", none of them really make sense like the 17-55 would. I'd have loved if it were 17-70 f2.8 IS.

    I'd mostly stay above 24 (hate making them fat) except for bigger groups or scenes and 55 is limiting, but 55 is usually plenty too. If it were in my bag, it would stay on one camera the whole time and IMO my results would improve as a result - so it's an obvious choice. I'm not suffering for lack of great lenses, but a trade might be in order.

    I can't afford another $1000 but having a little trouble of what I should dump?

    • The 50 hasn't been out of the bag in a year.
    • The Tamron is obviously not getting used.
    • The 70-300 APO will never get used but it's only worth about $150.
    • The 300 is new to me and I love the shots but I'd never bring it to a wedding or E-Shoot (I don't think anyway).
    • The 60 macro is paying off for ring and sign-in shots. Handy size too!
    • The 24-105 has it's place as my most all-round handy lens but it's not very artistic. It's also weather sealed so might work better for those knee-high wet surf E-Sessions I've got in mind.

      So; I suppose this is a rhetorical post, but I need a push.

      What I'm really wondering is if I should really gear-up more, or just make a different switch (like even dump my new 10-22) for something more suitable for my chosen path. I've seen enough to know this is what I want (wedding photography) and am willing to commit to it as my photography focus/obsession.
    Last edited by Vich; 01-23-2007 at 12:57 PM.
    Gear List:
    Some links I like: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    539
    Vich,

    I reread your post a few times, and I do have the 17-55 and 24-105 and they were both purchased primarily to shoot events (weddings) on two 20Ds (my shooting partner and I).

    Here are my random thoughts:

    The first thing that I noticed though is that the change in bokeh may not be as dramatic as you expect if you do go with the 17-55. (in fact, it might be better with the 24-105 depending on what you're doing, but you knew that already.) The long end at 55 instead of 70 is not a biggie, either... and more so since you can have the 70-200 on a 2nd body.

    The biggest difference which you did mention is going to be the availability of the wide end. It does suffer from distortion (and so does the 24-205) which can add time to the workflow. Using your existing 10-22 instead would give you two advantages (potentially no additional cost and little distortion), and one minor disadvantage (swapping lenses or not having the 70-200 on the body). I'll also say that it's my personal experience that the 17-55 or 24-105 can take 100% (if so desired) of shots needed for events.

    On the idea of finding $1000 (or whatever amount it is) in your current gear, whether to fund the 17-55 or not, I agree with the idea. It seems like the Tammy is overlap and the Sigma 70-300 is not doing much; I'd get rid of them. Although you're swapping the unused 50 for another great lens in the 85, I wonder why the 50 was unused in the first place... what I'm thinking is that the 85 is more specialized than the 50 on the cropper, so it might even be "worse" unless you're thinking of getting some more length for indoor sports or whatever.

    Lastly, I am typing all of this with a current frame of mind of moving to a 5D (or its successor), and keeping one 20D as the backup. I know it won't improve anything for me (I need practice, instead, lol), but what I'm thinking about is selling the 17-55 and 10-22, and reacquiring the 17-40, making the 17-40 the main event lens on the 20D and the 24-105 for the 5D. The 17-40 would also double as the WA landscape lens on the 5D. In a way, I'd be sort of moving to FF in an expensive manner having bought the 17-55 and 10-22, so that might be something to think about before you buy the 17-55. Don't get me wrong, though... the 17-55 is the best/most useful all-around lens for the 20D/30D and it's done wonderfully for me for events.

    Sorry if this was long-winded. Just thought it might help as we both seem to have much similarity in our camera gear.

    -noyjimi
    Last edited by noyjimi; 01-23-2007 at 02:10 PM.
    To err is human, to crop divine.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,770
    Thanks Noyjimi ... love your signature quote (go Ed Greene!).

    So the 17 distorts hua? And bokeh not as good as 24-105, really? I'm pretty unthrilled with the 24-105 bokeh as it is.

    The 50 doesn't see daylight because of the 35L - and it overlaps nearly everything else. I could do a shoot with the 50 only and have great results, but the 85 would achieve far better headshots and portraits.

    I'm thinking of 70-200 + 17-55 during ceremony then 85 + 17-55 for reception. 35 or 17-55 for formals, depending on room. Maybe some 10-22 for some wilder "formals" - like street style.

    You're probably right. Hanging back and seeing what the Canon anniversary brings maybe a 5D + 24-70IS f2.8 would be the new killer combo.

    I'm not in a lens funk or needing to gear-up more, just thinking "if I traded this for that", I'd have easier "what lens" choices.

    Appreciate your feedback. Hope you get that 5D - what a killer camera!


    Quote Originally Posted by noyjimi View Post
    Vich,

    I reread your post a few times, and I do have the 17-55 and 24-105 and they were both purchased primarily to shoot events (weddings) on two 20Ds (my shooting partner and I).

    Here are my random thoughts:

    The first thing that I noticed though is that the change in bokeh may not be as dramatic as you expect if you do go with the 17-55. (in fact, it might be better with the 24-105 depending on what you're doing, but you knew that already.) The long end at 55 instead of 70 is not a biggie, either... and more so since you can have the 70-200 on a 2nd body.

    The biggest difference which you did mention is going to be the availability of the wide end. It does suffer from distortion (and so does the 24-205) which can add time to the workflow. Using your existing 10-22 instead would give you two advantages (potentially no additional cost and little distortion), and one minor disadvantage (swapping lenses or not having the 70-200 on the body). I'll also say that it's my personal experience that the 17-55 or 24-105 can take 100% (if so desired) of shots needed for events.

    On the idea of finding $1000 (or whatever amount it is) in your current gear, whether to fund the 17-55 or not, I agree with the idea. It seems like the Tammy is overlap and the Sigma 70-300 is not doing much; I'd get rid of them. Although you're swapping the unused 50 for another great lens in the 85, I wonder why the 50 was unused in the first place... what I'm thinking is that the 85 is more specialized than the 50 on the cropper, so it might even be "worse" unless you're thinking of getting some more length for indoor sports or whatever.

    Lastly, I am typing all of this with a current frame of mind of moving to a 5D (or its successor), and keeping one 20D as the backup. I know it won't improve anything for me (I need practice, instead, lol), but what I'm thinking about is selling the 17-55 and 10-22, and reacquiring the 17-40, making the 17-40 the main event lens on the 20D and the 24-105 for the 5D. The 17-40 would also double as the WA landscape lens on the 5D. In a way, I'd be sort of moving to FF in an expensive manner having bought the 17-55 and 10-22, so that might be something to think about before you buy the 17-55. Don't get me wrong, though... the 17-55 is the best/most useful all-around lens for the 20D/30D and it's done wonderfully for me for events.

    Sorry if this was long-winded. Just thought it might help as we both seem to have much similarity in our camera gear.

    -noyjimi
    Gear List:
    Some links I like: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    476
    I could see the 24-70 IS being in the ballpark price somewhere in the neighborhood of what a 70-200 F2.8L IS resides.

    That would be a killer combo though with FF.

    I originally was using the 17-40 + 50 1.4 combo when I was doing some second shooting but once mmy 17-55 comes in I think the new combo will be 17-55 +the 85 1.8.

    If this 17-55 works out I may dump my 50 1.4 as well so I dont have any redundancy.
    Tim
    Canon 5D Mark II, 1D Mark II, Rebel XS
    50 F1.4, 85 F1.8, 100 2.8 Macro 70-200 F4L 580EX, 24-70 F2.8L

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,548

    Question The $64,000.02 question

    You know, reviewing this thread resurrected thoughts concerning something that was mentioned earlier.

    Why hasn't Canon delivered on a EF-S 17-70mm f/2.8L IS USM to meet up with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM? It would seem to be the perfect combo ... and probably would eliminate half the competition overnight.

    15 measely millimeters ... and they just could not turn that corner.

    Only SIGMA got even close ... but wound up delivering a f/2.8-4 on it.

    It does leave one to wonder ... where's "coldrain" on this?
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Crapville, Australia
    Posts
    5,148
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    You know, reviewing this thread resurrected thoughts concerning something that was mentioned earlier.

    Why hasn't Canon delivered on a EF-S 17-70mm f/2.8L IS USM to meet up with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM? It would seem to be the perfect combo ... and probably would eliminate half the competition overnight.
    Because they don't do L lenses in EF-S.
    Christian Wright; Dip Phot
    EOS 5D Mark III | EOS 600D | EOS-1V HS
    L: 14/2.8 II | 24/1.4 II | 35/1.4 | 50/1.2 | 85/1.2 II | 135/2 | 180/3.5 Macro | 200/2.8 II | 400/2.8 IS | 16-35/2.8 II | 24-105/4 IS | 70-200/2.8 IS II | 100-400/4.5-5.6 IS
    580EX II | EF 12 II | EF 25 II

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,188
    Top 10 list- 'Why hasn't Canon delivered on a EF-S 17-70mm f/2.8L IS USM'

    10. Because Tamron would only come out with a better version for less
    _______________
    Nikon D3, D300, F-100, 10.5 Fisheye, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, Zeiss 100 f/2, 105 f/2.5, 200 f/4 Micro, 200 f/2 VR, 300 f/2.8 AF-S II, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, SU-800, SB-900, 4xSB-800, 1.4x and 1.7x TC
    (2) Profoto Acute 2400 packs w/4 heads, Chimera Boxes

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,770
    Quote Originally Posted by RichNY View Post
    Top 10 list- 'Why hasn't Canon delivered on a EF-S 17-70mm f/2.8L IS USM'

    10. Because Tamron would only come out with a better version for less
    Oh sure; too cold to go fishing for real. You gotta pick-a-fight instead

    (nibble nibble) So; exactly when has Tamron ever bested Canon's best?

    I'm just messin' with ya! I know that you know that Canon's best!


    Quote Originally Posted by cwphoto View Post
    Because they don't do L lenses in EF-S.
    I think Andy's "DS" emblem is being considered. EF-DS 17-55 blah blah blah




    (you know ... Dust Sucker?)
    Last edited by Vich; 01-23-2007 at 04:12 PM.
    Gear List:
    Some links I like: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by Vich View Post
    Thanks Noyjimi ... love your signature quote (go Ed Greene!).
    thanks Vich Isn't Ed back... is he the same person as Razr???

    Quote Originally Posted by Vich View Post
    So the 17 distorts hua? And bokeh not as good as 24-105, really? I'm pretty unthrilled with the 24-105 bokeh as it is.

    The 50 doesn't see daylight because of the 35L - and it overlaps nearly everything else. I could do a shoot with the 50 only and have great results, but the 85 would achieve far better headshots and portraits.
    I'd say the weakest attribute of the 17-55 is its distortion on the wide end.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vich View Post
    I'm thinking of 70-200 + 17-55 during ceremony then 85 + 17-55 for reception. 35 or 17-55 for formals, depending on room. Maybe some 10-22 for some wilder "formals" - like street style.
    Here's what I use, based on two factors: (1) my preference to not (or more like inability to, due to weight) use a lens like the 70-200 2.8 (2) what is unfolding during the wedding.

    (Note all on 1.6x cropper) For prep shots, I use a 50 if there's plenty of space or just the 17-55. I will sneak in a 10-22 for a few, rarely a macro. Then at the venue, when not yet starting, we're shooting 17-55 (me) and 24-105 (partner) to get candids, sometimes also an 85.

    If the distance from the top row to where the couple will stand is too far for the 17-55, I will swap out with the 85, or have it on a 3rd body. Otherwise, the 10-22 gets on the 3rd body. Then crouching somewhere in the aisle or rows during the walk, getting shots using the 17-55/85 on the entourage...maybe 10-22 if there's something interesting about the venue. Partner is off to a side with 24-105, catching different perspective and candids.

    Once bride is at top, slowly back out of aisle to the back/center and put the 10-22 to work on some shots. At this point 24-105 is still offside capturing the couple. Once done with the wide shots, move up front if not noticeable or to the other side. Then 17-55/85 is dedicated to couple after this repositioning, and 24-105 is dedicated to candids, except for crucial moments (candle/kiss/ring/vows) where it's pointed at the couple. (btw our self-imposed rule is never to cross the imaginary line which is the front row.)

    At formals, the 17-55 or 50/85 works (or 24-105 just as well). It's relatively boring in the sense that the adrenaline has worn off some, LOL... sometimes 10-22 if feeling creative. But have to keep it fun so it's not too painful for the couple.

    At reception, depends... if there's plenty of space, it's 17-55 and 50. If tight, it's 17-55 and 28. If variable, 17-55 and 24-105. This may make no sense, but switching to a prime at the end of a few hours of weightlifting is a big relief.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vich View Post
    You're probably right. Hanging back and seeing what the Canon anniversary brings maybe a 5D + 24-70IS f2.8 would be the new killer combo.

    I'm not in a lens funk or needing to gear-up more, just thinking "if I traded this for that", I'd have easier "what lens" choices.

    Appreciate your feedback. Hope you get that 5D - what a killer camera!
    Yep... who knows what they're coming out with... it seems like they're wanting to move the 5D stock with the extended rebate. Or one could play it "safe" and buy but not open the 5D on 18th and then return it if something comes out... LOL.
    To err is human, to crop divine.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •