newbie 17-55is??

[rusty]

I'm a newbie and was fortunate to get a 30D as a gift. (the previous owner upgraded and was really generous). I was directed to get a cheap prime to get started and decided to get the canon 50 1.8. Coming from a P&S, I love the pictures I'm getting of my baby girl.


I think I'm getting addicted and with thecurrent rebate,I'm debating about getting a new lens. Maybe the canon 17-55 IS. It sounds like a goodinvestment since I want touseit now to take pictures of thefamily indoors especially of my baby and later on when we start going to the zoo, park and beach. I think with time I would be able to grow into a lens of this caliber. I like the fact it has a constant f/stop and I could makeadjustments with the zoom to compose the picturewhile trying to get the baby. I have no desire to ever move up to a full frame camera, but maybe buy better lens as my needs grow. (i'm hoping those needs never grow into a full frame body).


My questions:


1. Will the indoor shots with low to minimal lightbecomparable or worst than my current 50 1.8?


2. Would the 17-40L be a better option and wouldI be able to shot with f/4 indoors without a flash (I prefer not to shoot with flash,I get a stunned look from thefamily and think I'm contributing tomy babybecoming blind)?


Any help would be appreciated. By the way, want to thank all of you for the info you've shared on the forum.

[Sean Setters]

I own a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and absolutely love it. I also own a 50mm f/1.4. If you're shooting indoors, the 17-55 will do the job, but you'll need to shoot at higher ISOs than the 50mm f/1.8. The flexibility of a wide-angle zoom is undeniable--I often find 50mm to be a little long on a 1.6 crop sensor indoors, but it works. Typically speaking, I don't shoot indoors at f/4 and above without a flash.


Speaking of flash, I don't think the flash will impair your child's vision...but if you bounced the flash off a wall (or ceiling) it would probably look more natural and appealing.


If you're ok with a little extra noise in your images, then the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a fantastic overall lens. I shoot with it about 85% of the time. That said, I bought the 50mm f/1.4 for indoor (no flash) types of shots--so you might be fine with what you've got. However, if you decide you'd like to stay with the 50mm f/1.8, you might want to buy a backup as they tend to fall apart relatively easily.

[alex]

I also own the 17-55, and I, too, love it. It's a great lens, unbelievably sharp I think. For me, the f/2.8 has been indispensable indoors. I wouldn't be able to get the shots I can get if I had the 17-40 f/4, but only because I don't have an external flash. If you have one or plan on getting one, I imagine the 17-40 would be absolutely fine. Of course, you just said that you prefer to not use flash. So personally, I would go with the 17-55.


The 17-55 focal length is very useful, the IS is great.


Another advantage to the 17-55 over the 17-40 is the smaller DOF you will be able to achieve at f/2.8. Especially if you are doing portraits indoor, or shots of the baby, you can throw the background out of focus. Granted, that's just a comparison between f/2.8 and f/4....your 50mm f/1.8 would be even better at this.


Like this:


I'm sorry, I don't know how to post a hyperlink....here's my picture i'm talking about:


http://alex.shutterchance.com/photoblog/Tenderness_/2/


you'll just have to cut and paste, sorry!


alex

[rusty]

sorry for not thanking you both earlier for your responses. decided to get the 17-55 and waiting for it to arrive.


alex thanks for the link. a little inspiration to preserve those memories. question, are all your pictures taken with the 17-55?


curious to hear what is available to organize pictures and how to view the exif info on my computer with Windows Vista. could not find a post of this question, but if there is please let me know where i could find it.

[alex]

You're welcome Rusty! Glad I could be of help.


Yeah, all my pictures from the Canon XSi are with the 17-55mm. I've never owned anything else. I hope to get a 10-22 next, or the 70-200 f/4 IS.


I'm not sure about the Vista stuff. I've never used it. To look at exif information on an individual file in XP, you can right click the file and look at the properties. Or you can look at it in DPP, of course.

[Sean Setters]

Yeah, all my pictures from the Canon XSi are with the 17-55mm. I've
never owned anything else. I hope to get a 10-22 next, or the 70-200
f/4 IS.





Have you looked at the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8? It's been a very well reviewed lens, with only strong CA as its major drawback. Since you have the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, you don't necessarily need the extra reach that the 10-22 would give you. I'd much rather have the constant wide f/2.8 aperture.

[alex]

You know, Sean, I keep seeing that one come up in discussion here, and I'm definitely intrigued. I'm not a slave to Canon I don't think. Except for the 70-200 range, that is. I definitely want one of the Canons for that.


I just don't know very much about the Tokinas. I, too, am curious about Bryan reviewing some of them.


I can see how constant 2.8 would be awesome to have. I use 2.8 fairly often, even outdoors. But for ultra-wide angles (usually landscapes, for me) I would probably be using f/5.6 or f/8 anyway, so I'm not sure I would "need" the 2.8 very much.