Thank you all so much, it never was going to be an easy choice. I’m looking at the sixteen hundred dollar mark (Ozzie dollars) so hence why I want to get it right. I appreciate all of your comments and input, it does help. Just one question for Sean to help me a bit more mate. (I have followed and love your work so I’m particularly intrigued) What was your preference towards the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the 24-70 f/2.8 L. Thank you all once again Scott
Originally Posted by Scott
17 is significantly wider than 24
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]Ok, I honestly didn’t think 7mm in a 1.6 crop would have made that much of a difference, thanks for that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] The main reason I was interested in was the end result, “picture quality” and secondarily build quality, ie seal and gaskets to stop dust. The L series trade mark. Cheers all
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<o><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]</o
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]Scott
7mm x 1.6 = 11.2mm
Fairly significant if you ask me.
T3i, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 L, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, 430ex (x2), 580ex
13.3" MacBook Pro (late '11 model) w/8GB Ram & 1TB HD, Aperture 3 & Photoshop Elements 9
OK in a crop to FF mode but I'm talking 1.6 to 1.6, which is still 7mm to me ?
The difference between 17mm and 24mm is 7mm, regardless of the sensor type. However, on a APS-C sensor you will perceive that 7mm difference as roughly equivalent to a 1.6*7 = 11.2mm difference for someone with a 35mm camera were they to switch between lenses of focal length 27.2mm and 38.4mm. That is what was meant.
But really, the focal length difference between 17 and 24mm is significant not because it differs by 7mm, but because at the wide end, each mm of focal length impacts the angle of view far more than at the telephoto end. For instance, going from 20mm to 16mm will be a very noticeable change in the angle of view, compared to 200mm to 196mm, which is almost negligible.
I guessI think in equivalents. A 7mm difference on a crop isthe equivalent to a 11.2mm difference on a FF. 17mm being equivalent to 27.2mm and 24mm being equivalent to 38.4mm.
T3i, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 L, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, 430ex (x2), 580ex
13.3" MacBook Pro (late '11 model) w/8GB Ram & 1TB HD, Aperture 3 & Photoshop Elements 9
I went with the 17-55mm f/2.8 based on Bryan's reviews and recommendations. He noted that the 17-55 seemed to bethe bestall-purposefocal range for a 1.6x body with "very high image quality." Then the fact that it has 3-stop image stabilization put it over the top for me. I've been nothing but satisfied with my decision, and have learned to trust Bryan's judgement/reviews implicitly.
"Since EF-S lenses only mount on Canon EF-S bodies - which all feature a 1.6x FOVCF - the 17-55mm focal length range always equates to the field of view of a 27.2-88mm lens mounted on a full-frame Digital SLR. This range covers what I consider to be the most important focal lengths for a Canon general purpose lens. This is a focal length range that can be used for everything from a wide scenic landscape to a relatively-close portrait. "
"Combining an f/2.8 aperture with the 3 stop image stabilization, the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is arguably the most handholdable lens Canon currently makes."
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<o
<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"]Thanks Sean that is all I wanted to know, I do value your opinion and you put it in a way that makes sense.
<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"]<o
<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"]<o
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: 10pt;"]<o
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote