Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Yahoo.
true.
quite possible.
I'd say the advantage of the 17-55 is indoors, and the 24-105mm is outdoors. It depends on where you shoot IMO.
brendan
I agree with that in general - and currently, that's mostly my usage pattern. That's for family-type shots, though - indoors, walls often preclude backing up for the full scene, and outdoors for people shots it's usually easy to back up a step or three to frame with 24mm on a crop body. But for many indoor shots, I'm finding that the 24-105mm with a Speedlite works well, too.
The only place that 24mm doesn't work is scenic shots/landscapes, where the subject is sufficiently distant that sneaker-zoom is not feasible. That's where having something wider is needed outdoors - 17mm is usually enough, but 10mm is really nice sometimes!
Welcome to the Netherlands!!! [] Oh oh...more local competion for me [:P]
Well I guess I can give you quite solid advice since I live there [A]
Hmm yea cool lens, but very wide. The Netherlands are pretty much a concrete jungle and it's all pretty small and closely build, so you probably don't need a superwide-angle. And the times you want to have one you could also make a panorama shot. I live without a such an extreme wide-angle and I can do great without it (Don't miss it at all). In the bigger cities it's perhaps an option to shoot architecture with it, but that's about it.
Great lens when reading the reviews...although it would be great here in the summer-time...(I don't know how long you would be staying) we've got very grey and "dark" autumn and wintertime. Especially f5.6 can be challenging in a lot of situations. Personally I would pay a bit more and buy the 17-55 for it's constant f2.8 aperture. Which comes in handy in more situations []
Sounds like a good decision.
Well I'm with you on the biggest part, but... you buy a lens for a longer period of time. Eventually you will find out that the 15-85 will lack massively in low-light and you need another lens for low-light. The 10-22 won't help you with that so you have to buy a 3rd lens...
My advice: If and only IF your budget allows it, buy the 17-55. Buy once, buy good. Instead of reselling with a big loss later on. Or having to buy another lens for low-light.
I agree the 15-85 range sounds great, but I'm pretty sure you will be just as happy with the 17-55 range.
-Jan
Ps: where will you be going exactly?
I love my 17-55mm! Dust issues? I have not experienced any problems at all. I have a dog that is allergic to house dust, and our grass amongst many other things ...I can't keep him in a bubble. My point being, we can't avoid some things but we can take extra care so they do not present a problem for us.
I would rather enjoy the range and beautiful photosthe 17-55mm gives me andtakes extra care and precautions as I do withall my gearthan avoid it because of the posssibility of it giving me any problems from dust. Also, from what Jan mentions, it sounds like this would be the perfect lens for you for anumber reasons.
Whatever you decide, enjoy your trip and be sure to share photos!!
Denise
<p class="MsoNormal"]Thanks for the help everyone. I really appreciate the advice. Now it seems that I am torn between two very good options. I can go with the EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM as the “all purpose” lens. Or I can go with the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 + EF 24-105mm f/4L IS combination. Again, I am new to photography, but I really like the wide angles that the 17-55mm give me and I will definitely be able to use it in both the outdoor landscapes and indoor castle, museum, etc shots. I have to admit that the combination of the 24-105mm and the 10-22 mm would be great but the cost and having to switch the lenses out (especially with three kids) does cut down on the time that I have to get those great shots. The 17-55 mm is a little more than I wanted to spend, but I know that a good lens is critical. Bryan says that the 17-55 is one of the best all purpose lenses available, but he also says that “ If I had only one lens, this would be the one.” (referring to the 24-105 lens). So in the end, is the wider angle a better choice, or is the longer focal length a key? I have never been to Europe but from what I have seen I think that the wider angle would probable suite me better in this case. Is there anyone who has traveled overseas who can give me some advice here?
Jan,
We are going to be working at Volkel AB and I think that we are going to live in Gemert. From everything that I have read, The Netherlands isa great place to live and there is a lot to do. My family is really excited and the kids have even started to learn Dutch. I appreciate all of the help with the lens, do you have any more advice for a family from America getting ready to move? Where do you live? What are some things that we should pu on our list of things to do right away?
I will be sure to post some pictures once we get there. I am having fun with these posts and I am looking forward to getting everyones advice on how I can improve and take better pictures.
Bryan does most of his shooting with 1DsIII cameras - full frame bodies. It seems (to me) that he keeps a 50D around primarily for reviews of EF-S lenses, which do not mount on FF bodies. Thus, if he could only choose one lens (for his FF bodies), it would be the 24-105mm f/4L.
It all depends on what you want to shoot. In general, though, I think you'll be better served by 17mm (rather than 24mm) on wide end for a couple of reasons - first, for many of the architectural shots and indoor shots, your ability to back up will likely be more limited than your ability to step forward, and second, while you can often crop especially with the reasonable pixel density of the XSi/450D, you cannot add pixels later. If you were going on an African safari, the recommendation would be different. On trips to Amsterdam, Madrid, etc., I've found myself using the wider end rather than the longer end, in general. Having said that, I would think you'd still take the EF-S 55-250mm (or rent a 70-200 f/4L IS), so you'd have something for the longer end as well,just in case.
Hey there,
I am leaving to Denmark and Sweden for the weekend so I don't really have time to answer all your questions in detail now. I'll do that when I come back ok?
By the way I'm pretty sure you can't go wrong with the 17-55. For your information, you could also rent lenses here. Pretty close to where you'll be staying, but it's not cheap. And the cost of a new 17-55 here is 850 EURO excl hood. We don't have rebates here so you might get a good deal while you're in the states?
Jan
Let me contribute my 2 cents...
I got the sense from the posts that you will be doing a lot of indoor shots. If the majority is going to be inside buildings then I think the advice to go with the ef-s 17-55 f2.8 is the right recommendation. I wouldn't worry too much about the dust. I would assume if you are taking the time to participate on this forum, I belive you will take the time to care for your equipment - besides, dust rarely affects the image quality.
However if many of your shots will be outdoor in good light you might want to consider the 17-40 f4 L. It is less expensive (relatively speaking) than the ef-s 17-55 and will be compatible if you go full frame at some point. With the money saved you could add a flash for when you are indoors or a decent tripod (although you mentioned 3 kids which likely doesn't give much time for tripod setup). I recently got back from a trip and I had the 17-40 f4 L and the 70-200 f4 L. I didn't miss the 30mm inbetween, found I was able to move around enough to account for the gap in focal length. Sorry if this throws a wrench into your decision making process.
Clark
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote