Help with Lenses

[El Geek]

Hello:





My current equipment consist of Canon 50D, EF-S 10-22mm, EF-S 18-200mm, EF 50mm 1.8, EF 100-300mm. I am planning on eventually upgrade to full frame and get the EF 70-200mm. I am not very satisfied with the EFS 18-200 so I want to upgrade. I am considering the 24-105mm, 17-40mm, or 17-55mm. Any thoughts on which one to get? I am leaning towards 24-105 but the f/4 is throwing me off a little. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks

[Sean Setters]

I have the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS...and it is the sole reason I didn't consider upgrading to a full frame camera from the 50D (instead I opted for the 7D). There simply isn't a full frame lens available that can match the versatility and image quality of that lens (in my humble opinion, that is). I would recommend it to anyone as an ideal general purpose lens for a crop sensor body. At the time of this posting, I own 6 lenses...and about 80% of the time, I'm using the 17-55mm workhorse.


I used it today, in fact, for this shot:



http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2724/4448080649_5900ec5803.jpg ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/budrowilson/4448080649/)

[Colin]

I used it today, in fact, for this shot:


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2724/4448080649_5900ec5803.jpg ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/budrowilson/4448080649/)



And DAMN you look suave! QueRico!


Besides that, unless you're planning to upgrade to full frame soon, I'd do what Sean Says... Full frame, i'd go with a 24-70 f2.8

[crosbyharbison]

There simply isn't a full frame lens available that can match the versatility and image quality of that lens (in my humble opinion, that is).






I think my 24-70 + 5d II yields far greater IQ than a 7d + 17-55... just my opinion as well (:


One conceded point though: I haven't really missed IS for stills but for video I'd call the 17-55 a litter more versatile.

[Sheiky]

Hey


I would also opt for the 17-55 for it's great quality and features but...



I am planning on eventually upgrade to full frame and get the EF 70-200mm.


This makes it a bit tricky...I also bought the 17-55 with the 50D and after 2 months upgraded to fullframe and the money I wasted on this beautiful lens was a bit of a pain. I have to say that the 17-55 is just amazing and in my opinion the best for a cropbody, but if your planning on going fullframe soon it wouldn't be the best choice.


Can I ask you why you want fullframe? You've got to sell your 10-22 as well in that case. The 17-40 would be great for extreme wideangle on a fullframe body, but the 24-105 (I own one) is simply a great walkaround lens and in my opinion you could shoot excellent portraits with it. f4 on full frame is pretty nice [:D]


On a crop the 24-105 is a great lens as well and it is a safe bet if you plan to go full frame. You've got the wideangle covered with your 10-22 untill then. And about the f4...what about it? The IS a a great feature on a cropbody, but probably a bit unnecessary on fullframe. Still it is a wonderfull lens and I personally wouldn't trade it for a 24-70, but that's just me.


My conclusion, find out in what time you think you will upgrade. I would say: buy the 17-55 if you got plenty of time, else think good abput what you expect and want.


Jan

[El Geek]

Once I upgrade to full frame, I want to keep the 50D as my backup. I love the 10-22mm lens and I use it a lot. I just ant to upgrade my walk around lens and I want to decide what would be best for my future purchases.

[neuroanatomist]

IMO, the 24-105mm f/4L is pretty much the ideal walkaround lens on FF. I wouldn't be too worried about the f/4 - keep in mind that the crop factor applies to DoF as well, so an f/2.8 lens on a crop body will have the same depth of field as f/4.5 on a full frame body.


Having said that, I absolutely love my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 on my 7D - for a crop body, I think it's the best choice as a walkadound lens, and is the one that's on my camera most of the time.

[hunt92]

i would personaly buy the 17-40 because i have 1 and the image quality and build quality are awsome and on a crop body is a great walkaround but on full frame is a lil bit wide so maby i would get the 24-105 or 24-70 if its it your buget

[piiooo]

<p id="ctl00_ctl00_bcr_bcr_PostForm__QuoteText"]


IMO, the 24-105mm f/4L is pretty much the ideal walkaround lens on FF. I wouldn't be too worried about the f/4 - keep in mind that the crop factor applies to DoF as well, so an f/2.8 lens on a crop body will have the same depth of field as f/4.5 on a full frame body.


Having said that, I absolutely love my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 on my 7D - for a crop body, I think it's the best choice as a walkadound lens, and is the one that's on my camera most of the time.



I have the luxury of owning both lenses and could not agree more. [Y]


Edited: Addedneuroanatomist's missing quote.

[Sheiky]

I have the luxury of owning both lenses and could not agree more. /emoticons/emotion-21.gif


I had the 17-55 in combo with the 50D and now I have the 24-105 on FF and I couldn't agree more either...buttt....



<div>



I am planning on eventually upgrade to full frame


Untill that time you will find yourself wanting a shallower depth of field than f4 on a APS-C body. So you need to find out what time-line you're in. Are you going to upgrade within a year for instance, the 17-55 will be a moneybreaker (that happened to me[A]). Since you have to sell it so soon.


If your planning is longer term, the 17-55 is a safe bet and the best bet in my opinion. It's a very good lens!



<div>



I am leaning towards 24-105 but the f/4 is throwing me off a little


My suggestion, go with f2.8 immediately so you wont have second thoughts later on. I personally don't shoot a lot at f2.8 or bigger so I wouldn't mind the f4.


My final suggestion: figure out what your future plans are and in what time they are planned. After that you couldn't make the best decision yourself.


Jan
</div>



</div>