Originally Posted by MrT
Only you can answer that question; personally, I would find 55mm too short for basketball and track and field. Even the 85mm is too short sometimes. 85mm is the lens I would go for, though a lot of shots would be missed because it can't zoom.
17-55 would be great for environmental portraits and full length shots, but I would switch to the 70-200 f/4 for close ups, headshots, etc.
The 24-70 and 17-55 both have very good image quality. One is wider and the other is longer (by about the same amount on each). One big difference is that one has I.S. and is $150 cheaper. If you don't need I.S., you would be paying a lot of extra money for something you don't need. Consider the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, which has nearly the same quality and features, but is less than half the price. (Read Bryan's review.)
It's true. A lot of cost and design goes into the part of the image circle that a crop camera never sees. If Canon made an EF-S 24-70 f/2.8, it would be a lot cheaper for the same level of quality.
Yes, it's still a wise investment if it's the focal length you need. You can't help the fact that Canon doesn't make the exact lens that would be perfect for you, because you have to pick from the lenses Canon actually does make. If that means paying an extra $400 over what the "ideal" lens would cost, so be it.
Always go with the present. At the very worst, you'll just have to sell your current choice for 20% or so of what you paid for it.
Some say that they are better since they have been through more QA. I don't know.
Reply With Quote