Look for a new Lens

I currently have the 400D with the stock lens. The photos from what I've taken are OK.


I do a lot of landscape photos with plenty of day and night shots. I also play around with HDR imaging.


I'm looking into a new lens that will last me for a long time.





From what I read, I narrowed it down to a few.


Canon EF 17-40 L


Canon EF 16-35 L


Would be one of the preferred ones, but they are not cheap (17-40 being a few hundred $ less than the 16-35)





Canon 17-85mm seems also good, cheaper, but I don't think as good as the "L" series.





Any ideas, comments, thoughts?

Is the kit lens wide enough for you? If so, 17-40 is a great place to start, and it's a LOT less expensive than the 16-35.


If you need wider, consider the 10-22.

I've got the 17-40 F4L for use on a cropped body and it's excellent. It also works on full frame if you ever decided to go in that direction in the future.


If you are only thinking of staying with a cropped body, Brian's review on the new 15-85 says it's a pretty good lens for an EF-S mount. Personally, I still like the 17-40.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plunderisley

Canon 17-85mm seems also good, cheaper, but I don't think as good as the "L" series.

---

Don't. If you're willing to consider a variable aperture zoom lens, consider the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM instead. That's the lens that replaced the 17-85, and the image quality is significantly better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plunderisley

I'm looking into a new lens that will last me for a long time.

---

How long? Specifically, do you intend to change to a full frame body, and if so, when? I ask because the two lenses you list are FF-compatible, whereas the lens I'd really recommend for you is not. Have you considered the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM? The cost is intermediate between the 17-40mm f/4L and the 16-35mm f/2.8L. However, you get image quality equivalent to an L-series lens, the constant f/2.8 aperture of the 16-35mm lens, a broader focal length range than either of the lenses you list, and the additional benefit of image stabilization. In giving up the L designation, you're not sacrificing image quality with the 17-55mm, but you are sacrificing FF compatibility, and weather-sealing (which is not relevant unless you have a weather-sealed body, which you don't).


If you won't go FF for a couple of years, I'd suggest you strongly consider the 17-55mm. It is, hands-down, the best general purpose zoom on a 1.6x crop body.


Personally, of my seven lenses (4 of which have a red ring), the 17-55mm is the one I use the most on my 7D.

Be careful with the 15-85. Roger at LensRentals says it's overpriced. See http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/cano...-usm/for-canon for his commentary. I think Roger's observations are quietly embedded in Bryan's review, just not spoken in the same manner.

Well I want the lens to last many years, and I will probably be replacing the body in the winter time to the 550D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plunderisley

Well I want the lens to last many years, and I will probably be replacing the body in the winter time to the 550D

---

A 550D is still not full frame. Unless you're planning to go full frame, I second John's suggestion.


Different lenses for different uses and different styles. Almost always when people ask "which lens should I get", I say "it depends."


But comparing the 17-55 to the more expensive 16-35 on a crop body, it's hard to argue in favor of the 16-35. As John said, the 17-55 gives you more reach and IS and IQ that is at least as good. (I guess if you absolutely *need* that 16 mm, that argues in favor of the 16-35 :) but as has been said, if you really want wider than 17-55 get the 10-22)


I wouldn't even recommend the 17-40 (which I own and like very much on my 5DII). Even if the 17-55 costs a little more, you're getting a *lot* for the difference.


It really seems a waste to spend a lot of money on a wide lens that covers a full frame ccd, and then to put the lens on a crop body. It is more difficult, more expensive, and requires more heavy glass to make a wide lens for full frame. Wide EF-S lenses are cheaper and lighter and ofter have superior IQ as compared to a cropped EF counterpart.


(Though usually not- others are free to disagree- as compared with uncropped EF lenses.)

The canon 17-55mm should be first on your list. I have the 17-40L and the 17-55mm. The 17-40 goes on my 5d MK II, but the 17-55mm IS really beats it out IQ wise on my 40d. I never bought a wider lens, I found 17mm to be plenty wide. However, it does depend on what type of shots you prefer.

What about the 16-35mm L?


Its 2.8, and I like to do night shots without flash, but I do get some noise.


Will a lower f fix that with a higher iso?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plunderisley

What about the 16-35mm L?

---

As I and others have pointed out, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS cost less, is also f/2.8, has just as good IQ (if not better), has more reach, and IS to boot. Why would you prefer the 16-35?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plunderisley

Will a lower f fix that with a higher iso?

---

Yes, but of course the 17-55 is also f/2.8. And if you're worried about keeping ISO down in low light, the IS of the 17-55 will be a big bonus, especially at the long end. In fact, I believe the 17-55 is the most hand-holdable of all canon lenses on a crop body. You can't buy a better lens for hand-held night photography with no flash, IMO.

Hmm,


17-55mm is 3000pln ($900) out here, which I think is cheaper than in the USA (for once the downward euro has some use to me...)


the canon 10-22mm is a bit cheaper at around 2800pln ($850), but the f is higher...





But rereading the review on that 17-55mm, it seems like that lens just rocks..

I'm going to agree with neuro and his never ending quest to guide people to the light at the end of the tunnel that is the 17-55mm. Can't go wrong with that lens. Especially if you're used to the kit lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikehillman89

I'm going to agree with neuro and his never ending quest to guide people to the light at the end of the tunnel that is the 17-55mm. Can't go wrong with that lens. Especially if you're used to the kit lens.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Yes, you can go wrong with that lens. The 17-55 is not a truly durable lens - the IS unit has "issues" after being handled a fair amount. Both times I've rented the 17-55, it's had a jerky IS unit (and both times, LensRentals has taken excellent care of me). And, if a 1D or a full-frame body is in your future, the 17-55 will be somewhat obsoleted at that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

And if you're worried about keeping ISO down in low light, the IS of the
17-55 will be a big bonus, especially at the long end.

---

Yes, IF your shutter speeds are in the range of 1/10th to 1/50th. If you're trying to stop-action with people, you need higher shutter speeds anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

The 17-55 is not a truly durable lens - the IS unit has "issues" after being handled a fair amount. Both times I've rented the 17-55, it's had a jerky IS unit (and both times, LensRentals has taken excellent care of me).

---

Lensrentals.com's failure rate probably not the best way to judge lens durability. Granted, the fact that they stock &gt;50 of them gives them good experience with the lens. However, they stock &gt;50 of them because it's a very popular lens, for a reason. In general, rentals have a significantly higher failure rate than purchased products - they are transported more frequently, and used by people who don't have a vested interest in protecting their investment (especially since the damage insurance is relatively cheap to add). The 17-55mm is a very well-built lens. No, it's not L-quality build, despite the L-quality images it produces (and the L-like cost).


The OP has a 400D with a kit lens (18-55mm). It's hard to imagine a less durable lens than the 18-55mm kit lenses, with their plastic mounts and low/mid-grade plastic barrels (maybe the 50mm f/1.8 II comes close). Point is, if the OP has kept that lens in usable shape since buying the 400D, the 17-55mm will hold up just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

And if you're worried about keeping ISO down in low light, the IS of the
17-55 will be a big bonus, especially at the long end.

---

Yes, IF your shutter speeds are in the range of 1/10th to 1/50th. If you're trying to stop-action with people, you need higher shutter speeds anyway.

---

Peety3, you initially recommended the 17-40mm f/4L. The 17-55mm f/2.8 is a stop faster, and has a wider range. Even so, it's not going to freeze people in dim environments. But, it's quite possible to shoot 'still' scenes with the 17-55mm handheld at night. I have a handheld shot with that lens with barely perceptible motion blur (can't see it on the 8x10" print, but it's there if I zoom to 100%) - I wanted to get nice water blur of a lit fountain at night, and the exposure was 1.6 seconds. That sort of shot would be impossible with either the 17-40mm f/4L or the 16-35mm f/2.8L.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

if a 1D or a full-frame body is in your future, the 17-55 will be somewhat obsoleted at that point.

---

Only if the 1.6x crop is gotten rid of. When I get a FF body, I'll be keeping my crop body - and I'll want the 17-55mm to use one it. Also, the OP is talking about a forthcoming upgrade to the T2i/550D - a very nice body, to be sure. But, there are generally a lot of upgrade steps between a Rebel and FF. I would think a few years' use (through multiple 1.6x bodies) of a great lens like the 17-55mm will be more than enough to recoup the value from that lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

And if you're worried about keeping ISO down in low light, the IS of the
17-55 will be a big bonus, especially at the long end.

---

Yes, IF your shutter speeds are in the range of 1/10th to 1/50th. If you're trying to stop-action with people, you need higher shutter speeds anyway.

---

Of course IS wont help you stop action. But the OP wants to do night photography with no flash. Probably won't be stopping much fast action :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

have a handheld shot with that lens with
barely perceptible motion blur (can't see it on the 8x10" print, but
it's there if I zoom to 100%) - I wanted to get nice water blur of a lit
fountain at night, and the exposure was 1.6 seconds.

---

You have steady hands, dude. My best with the 24-105 (similar effective fl, though perhaps with inferior IS) is about 1/2 second.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plunderisley

What about the 16-35mm L?


Its 2.8, and I like to do night shots without flash, but I do get some noise.


Will a lower f fix that with a higher iso?

---

2.8 still isn't that fast. For what you are considering paying for the 16-35L (which is awesome on a FF) you can get the 17-55 2.8 and a 50 1.4 or Sigma 30 1.4 (for night shooting).

looks like a 17-55mm lens is what I need to get [:D]

I'd tell you to look at the refurb line of Canon at Adorama and save $200, but the last time I looked (which had been a couple days at least), it listed the 17-55 refurb as discontinued. I'm not sure how to take that. They usually have it or they don't. The "discontinued" threw me for a loop. Maybe I just caught them in-between updates on the server.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andnowimbroke

I'd tell you to look at the refurb line of Canon at Adorama and save $200, but the last time I looked (which had been a couple days at least), it listed the 17-55 refurb as discontinued. I'm not sure how to take that. They usually have it or they don't. The "discontinued" threw me for a loop. Maybe I just caught them in-between updates on the server.

---

Probably just means that they had a refurb, someone bought it, and the system was waiting for the sale to go through, or something like that. In any case they don't have a refurb 17-55mm currently. Of course, it doesn't matter to the OP, since I'm not sure buying from Adorama in New York and having it shipped to Poland would be cost-effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plunderisley

17-55mm is 3000pln ($900) out here, which I think is cheaper than in the USA (for once the downward euro has some use to me...)

---

Not to mention that based on the exchange rate, it's cheaper new in Poland than Adorama would charge for a refurb anyway!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Not to mention that based on the exchange rate, it's cheaper new in Poland than Adorama would charge for a refurb anywa

---

I remembered reading the first page before and just skipped to the second. After making my post, I went back to read the first end again and it all came back to me:) Oh well. Thanks for keeping me honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Probably just means that they had a refurb, someone bought it, and the system was waiting for the sale to go through

---

I guess that would have been me... I waited for about a week and a half for it to show up at my doorstep. I finally went back to my in box and look at the invoice to see when it was shipped only it wasn't a shipping date, but a refund for the lens as they oversold the lens and issued refunds to everyone. I wonder if I can write off a trip to Poland on my taxes to pick up a lens?

If you're staying with a crop sensor, and you like landscapes, nothing can beat the Canon 10-22mm. It's simply fantastic in both build and optical quality.


I wouldn't be too worried about the aperture being a little higher as with landscapes you generally want a deep depth of field anyway so you'll find yourself stopping down to narrower apertures.


Don't discount the Sigma 10-20mm either. I have a friend who uses it (on a Nikon D80) and he's taken some beautiful photos with it.


Hope this helps. Ben

So I bought a used 17-55mmf2.8canon lens. Paid about $800 for it out here. Should get it in next week. Came with a Hoya UV filter and a few other accessories.





What about a hood?


A generic one I see run about $15 with shipping compared to a canon one hich is $50+


Is there a difference between the two?

Congrats on a great lens purchase! (And a great price, too!)


A few weeks ago, I'd have said you'd be fine with a 3rd party hood. The only 'optical' difference between them is the Canon lens hoods have flocking on the inside (a velvety coating to reduce reflections) that most 3rd party hoods lack. But recently Jordan mentioned getting a 3rd party hood for his 17-55mm, and it frequently rotated or fell off - enough that he stopped using it entirely. Given that, I'd recommend shelling out the price of the Canon hood, or if you do get a 3rd party version, make sure you can return it easily (and not end up paying more than you would just buying the OEM hood from the outset).

If I translate the one I was looking at..





<span>Hood dedicated to the following Canon lenses.
<span>Dimensions identical to the EW-83J - the same functionality as the original at a fraction of its price!
<span>Guarantee the absence of vignetting throughout the zoom range.
<span>Fastened to the bayonet, of course - thanks to high-quality material, often does not wear off springs.


<span>Cover is made of durable plastic
<span>the inside cover is anti - matt
<span>fastened to the bayonet - can establish a reverse on the lens,
<span>high quality and durability of the product,
<span>new, unused - warranty 24 months.

Got the lens in today.


Looks real nice!


No scratches, damages, etc. Ill have to play around with it, but just testing the IS it works great.