Replace or Augment EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EricPvpi

thekingb / ham - I had been looking at primes and keeping my existing zoom and considered:
EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
EF 35mm f/2.0
EF 50mm f/1.4

---

The non-L prime market in the 24-35mm range is maddeningly thin. Canon hasn't updated their affordable options in this range in a LONG time. The EF 28 f/1.8 is a 17 year-old design; the 35 f/2 is 22 years-old; the 50 f/1.4 is 19 years-old. Come on, Canon!

The EF 28 f/1.8 gets mixed reviews. I'd read Bryan's review on this site. He's certainly not in love with it.

Some people say that they have focus issues with the Sigma. I haven't and am very pleased, and I know that forum member Sean Setters is very happy with his.

I have no experience with the EF 35 f/2.

I sold my 50 f/1.4 for two reasons: it was often too long indoors, and the focus was unreliable wider than f/2.5 or so. It was maddening.

A good, fast prime is a nice addition to your kit.

Brian

Even for a 19 year-old design I'm quite happy with my 50 f/1.4 I find it works great as a portrait lens on crop or as a low light lens. I might have a better copy than Brian, but mine hasn't had any autofocus issues, even when wide open.

Just curious for those using the 17-55mm f/2.8 on a crop body, what are you using above 55?

I use both the 17-55 and the 24-105 f/4. I could not live without either but if i had to pick one it would be the 24-105. Build and heft are much better. Good luck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IndianaPhotog

I use both the 17-55 and the 24-105 f/4. I could not live without either but if i had to pick one it would be the 24-105. Build and heft are much better. Good luck

---

Thanks - in my case I was considering if it is worth the cost of having both. It sounds like a lot of the group thought it was too much overlap and a prime would be better. I was just reading your posting in "Kits lens upgrade recommendations" and it saw you had both.

17-55/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 IS II is a great (albeit) expensive combo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EricPvpi

Just curious for those using the 17-55mm f/2.8 on a crop body, what are you using above 55?

---

The info is also in my signature, but I use a 70-200 F/4L IS. Quite a bit less expensive than the 2.8 IS II suggested by neuro. ;)

The gap between 55 and 70 isn't really that noticeable. It is in the photographer movement range. :p

Also acceptable cropping range if you shoot at 55mm and narrow it down.

You effectively have a wide-normal lens and a normal-long lens.

I picked up the 17-55 F/2.8 and am looking forward to using it. I'll see if I can handle the missing gap, which as patham mentions I can move around to cover it.

Are there any general rules around depreciation of lenses? I'll start looking around for similar pricing, but wasn't sure if there were good guidelines around selling a lens that is still pretty new.

I was tempted to keep the 15-85 when I wanted 1 lens to walk with, but figured selling it would be better and I can look at a prime or macro lens for the future.

Thanks again for the advice,
Eric