Need a general-purpose lens...lots of indoor shooting

[davideglasgow]

In a development that can only be described as earth-shattering, my wife basically gave me the go-ahead to buy a new lens for my Rebel XS.


That being said, I do quite a bit of indoor shooting of my kids. I currently have the 50mm f/1.4 and spend a lot of time shooting at f/2.8 and ISO 1600 due to the lighting in my house.


So, in looking at Bryan's lens recommendations, he has the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
at the top. I guess I was under the impression that the L-series is superior in image quality. Looking at the first L-series recommendations, there is the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM. I don't really care about the focal lengths, but the f/4 vs. f/2.8 is important to me. However, will I lose image quality by giving up the IS feature?


I know a little confusing, but which lens sounds like the right one for me?

[neuroanatomist]

As I've said (often!), I think the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is the best general purpose zoom lens on a crop body. That's especially true for indoor shooting.

I guess I was under the impression that the L-series is superior in image quality.

In general, that's true. However, there are some non-L lenses that offer L-class image quality, and the 17-55mm f/2.8 is one of them. Its image quality on par with theEF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM. The 24-70mm does have less barrel distortion at the wide end.


The L-series lenses offer more than just IQ - they are more ruggedly built, and many offer weather-sealing (when mounted on a weather-sealed body, which your XS is not).

I don't really care about the focal lengths, but the f/4 vs. f/2.8 is important to me. However, will I lose image quality by giving up the IS feature?

The wider aperture is going to be more important indoors. It allows focusing in lower light, where an f/4 lens may struggle a bit. IS doesn't affect image quality per se. It does allow you to get handheld shots in lower light than would otherwise be possible, but that stabilization comes at the cost of a slow shutter speed - that's fine for static subjects (art in a museum), but not so useful with moving subjects (even people posing move, and you want 1/30 s or faster to freeze that motion). IS won't help there, but a wider aperture will.


Even though you 'don't really care about the focal lengths', you may find 24mm not wide enough indoors.


Personally, I have both theEF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and theEF 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: red;"]L IS USM lenses. I use the 17-55mm more frequently, and it's ideal indoors and outdoors. I bought the 24-105mm primarily as an outdoor walkaround lens, in large part because it offers weather-sealed combination with my 7D. I don't mind using it indoors if I'm in too much of a hurry to swap lenses, but that's usually with a bounced flash (430EX II). In the long, dark New England winter, the 17-55mm stays on the camera most of the time.

I know a little confusing, but which lens sounds like the right one for me?

.


Overall, I think the 17-55mm is the right choice for you.

[Brendan7]

So, in looking at Bryan's lens recommendations, he has the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
at the top. I guess I was under the impression that the L-series is superior in image quality. Looking at the first L-series recommendations, there is the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM. I don't really care about the focal lengths, but the f/4 vs. f/2.8 is important to me. However, will I lose image quality by giving up the IS feature?

The 17-55mm is an L lens in a non-L lens shell. It has the image quality and glass of an L, but isn't build as well (not built like crap, though).
On a crop body it's the best general purpose lens for most purposes. IS is a huge feature and that is usually the last nail in the coffin for the purchase of that lens. So what neuro said.


brendan

[Sean Setters]

That being said, I do quite a bit of indoor shooting of my kids. I currently have the 50mm f/1.4 and spend a lot of time shooting at f/2.8 and ISO 1600 due to the lighting in my house.

Why do you shoot at f/2.8 and ISO 1600 instead of shooting at f/2 and ISO 800?

I don't really care about the focal lengths, but the f/4 vs. f/2.8 is important to me.

I know you say you don't care about focal lengths, but I assume you mean when it comes to the selection of zooms that you mentioned. Do you find the 50mm f/1.4 too long for general purpose use indoors? If so, you might want to take a look at the 35mm f/2 for a cheap alternative.

[davideglasgow]

That being said, I do quite a bit of indoor shooting of my kids. I currently have the 50mm f/1.4 and spend a lot of time shooting at f/2.8 and ISO 1600 due to the lighting in my house.

Why do you shoot at f/2.8 and ISO 1600 instead of shooting at f/2 and ISO 800?

Mainly to keep the DOF somewhat reasonable. The 50mm f/1.4 is sharpest down to f/2.8, as well. Maybe I destroy all that with the high ISO...who knows. Recommendation?

[Sean Setters]

Mainly to keep the DOF somewhat reasonable. The 50mm f/1.4 is sharpest down to f/2.8, as well. Maybe I destroy all that with the high ISO...who knows. Recommendation?

I was just asking to make sure f/2.8 was necessary. If that's the case, then an f/2.8 zoom would be fine (in fact, probably ideal). However, if you could get away with shallower depth of field, then a cheaper (wider) prime might have fit the bill.

[Jayson]

I purchased a Tamron 17-50mm (non-VC) instead of purchasing the 17-55 due to the price difference. I had a backfocusing issue with the lens when I first received it, sent it to Tamron and now it works great. I haven't regretted getting it instead of the 17-55. You could look at that and possibly purchasing another lens for the price of the 17-55. That way you get two for one. You could get the tamron and the 70-200 f4 non-is basically for the price of one lens.


Most who recommend the 17-55 love it and I have thought of purchasing this, but just can't justify it based on the performance of my Tammy. I have also heard good things of the Tamron 28-75(i believe that is the right range) and it is also a constant 2.8. Check out Bryan's reviews as they are pretty favorable also.


Just my two cents.


Jayson