It depends on if you can use flash or not. If you can
It depends on if you can use flash or not. If you can
7D | 1D Classic | EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS | EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS
@MikeG2012, Thant is an excellent point of view! Not many people realize how important light is when taking photo
My only concern would be, what kind of field curvature do you get from the f/2.8 17-55 ?
The 24-105 would give you a little more flexibility, especially for individual or couple portrait shots.
I use the 24-105 for weddings but on a 5D. The high ISO performance with the IS allows me to get some great shots when I can not use flash. I am not comfortable with the high ISO performance of any of the APS-C bodys with the possible exception of the 7D. I have used my 24-105 on my XTi and find it sometimes not wide enough. If I were using an APS-C body i would go with the 17-55.
Mark
Mark
Originally Posted by tkerr
What do you mean by field curvature?
Do you mean the formal definition,when a lens projects a curved image on the film/sensor plane, instead of a flat image? If so,both lenses exhibit very low field curvature (the 24-70mm is affected by this issue to a greater degree).
Alternatively, do you mean thecolloquialdefinition, which is more formally known as distortion? Barrel distortion (straight lines bulge outward) commonly affects wide angle lenses (especially the wide end of zooms) and pincushion distortion (straight lines pinch inward) commonly affects the longer end of zooms. If that's what you mean, both the 17-55mm and the 24-105mm on a 1.6x body show some barrel distortion at the wide end, and the degree is similar (1.8% for the 24-105mm, 2% for the 17-55mm). That's noticeable, but nothing like the 24-105mm on FF (4.3% barrel distortion at 24mm; the L lens benefits from the 'sweet spot' effect when used on a crop body).
<div>
My answer to that would be the 17-55mm. IMO, it's the best general purpose zoom lens for a crop body.
But I think it's a bit unfair to consider the issue in isolation. Which other lenses do you have? For example, if the longest lens in your kit is 50mm, and you have a fast, wide prime, then you may benefit from the extra focal length of the 24-105mm and be willing to take the hit on aperture. Conversely, if you have nothing wider than 28mm (or your only lens wider is the 18-55mm kit lens), then you'll definitely need the wide end of the 17-55mm. Do you also have a second body? There's not always time enough to change a lens, and having a backup is critical in case of equipment failure.
On a broader issue, you state in your profile, "I am starting to explore the idea of wedding photography, with the hopes of becoming a semi-professional photographer." Hopefully, you're not planning to mount a new 17-55mm on your camera and head off to shoot a wedding. []
Check out Roger's (lensrentals.com) acronym-filled article on the subject - a bit tongue-in-cheek but he makes several good points.
</div>
thanks for all the advice. looks like it unanimous for the 17-55. So I will be looking to buy one.
I realize I need multiple lenses and bodies and flashes for this. I just knew I needed one of these two lenses for the majority of the photography but wasn't sure which one I should get.
And lots of experience
Personally I went with the 24-70 2.8, which I know wasn
You can not go wrong with the 17-55 on a crop body. Unless you have a prime you are using, it will be your most used indoor lens.
I
that 17-55 is only going to work well for wildlife if they are super close to you...I would say just stay with the lens you got for wildlife. unless everything you plan on photographing is within a few feet. But I guess that can be the case with some wildlife there.
As far me, i just ordered my 17-55 today, thanks for everyones opinions
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote