Originally Posted by realityinabox
Don't get the 15-85mm, because:
Once you get above 60mm on the 15-85mm lens, you have an f/5.6 lens. For portraits, the desirable out-of-focus blur you want will, for lack of a better word, suck at f/5.6. You'll need f/2.8 (or less, which is why I mentioned the 85mm f/1.8!) to effectively isolate your subject from your background at these focal lengths.
John is right. For portraits, you don't want a slow lens.
A "general purpose lens" is about compromises. You have to give up something. Given that you shoot landscapes and portraits an rarely use the long end of the lens you have, the superior IQ and speed of the 17-55 will matter more than the reach.
No, the 17-55 isn't an ideal portrait lens (for that, you want a fast prime or longer zoom). But IMO it will do better than the 15-85.
I will add another vote for the 17-55. [Y][Y]
I have had it for almost a year and a half and the images are on par
with my 70-200 IS L. It is the lens most often mounter on my 50D, and it
never lets me down. Of my lenses, I feel that my 17-55 gives me the most
bang-for-the-buck.
In your original post you stated:
I would suggest that if you seldom use 70, and your overall image quality is poor, you will have better crops from the 17-55 than your raw images currently are from the Sigma. What you may miss the most is the 2.8 aperture. After the widest settings (15-17) the 15-85 goes to f/4 and by 38mm it is at f/5. That is a lot less light coming in than your are used to. If you are not shooting with a flash or a lot of ambient light, especially action, this should be a major consideration for you.
Chris
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Actually yes, you need a fast prime. But it also help big time to have a full-frame camera, you get 30% more background blur than 1.6. But, and this is a big but. If you use a longer lens to maintain the same working distance then you will get MUCH more background blur.
John.
Agree 100%.
If it's bokeh you want, you need a longer lens. The 15-85 is an outdoor lens and the 17-55 an indoor lens (doesn't mean it's bad outdoors); and this makes the 17-55 a more valuable lens.
It also seems you have conflicting requirements: wide angle and great bokeh. Most likely you'd need primes or a longer lens for that, but from what I've seen the 17-55 is the way to go.
from what I've heard the canon 17-55 2.8IS is a great all purpose lens. But just to throw the option out there, you can try the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and Canon 85 1.8 combo. Both together will cost you less than $1000 and it will give you a general purpose lens that can do landscapes and a fast indoor portrait lens with good bokeh.
Any thoughts on the 17-55 vs. the 24-105 f/4.0 IS L?
the 24-105 is a stop slower, but it has more on the long end. I'm still worried that 55 will just feel too short, that'd be the longest focus length I'd have.
Do you need f/2.8 for bokeh, or dim light? What focal-length ranges are you expecting to use? Where you place you focal-range break depends on your style, and which lengths you tend to use at the same time. If you tend to shoot near 50mm, the 24-105mm will reduce lens changes. If you tend to shoot wide to mid, the 17-55mm will reduce lens changes.
I personally went with the 24-105mm. My wife and I were used to a Sonysuper-zoomP&Sequivalentto 36-432, and were finding the kit lens 55mm felt really, really short to us. Occasionally it would be nice to have f/2.8, but it's also nice to have reach.
You may want to supplement the 24-105mm with a 10-22mm for wide, or stick with the kit lens if you only use wide on rare occasions, and don't need shallow DOF, such as landscapes.
You may want to supplement the 17-55mm with a 70-200mm for tele.
On Flickr - Namethatnobodyelsetook on Flickr
R8 | R7 | 7DII | 10-18mm STM | 24-70mm f/4L | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | 50mm f/1.8 | 85mm f/1.8 | 70-300mm f/4-5.6L | RF 100-500mm f/4-5-7.1L
It all depends on what you want to use the lens for. You mentioned portraits and landscapes - the 24-105mm f/4L won't be ideal for either of those (aperture too narrow for good OOF blur in portraits, not wide enough for landscapes).
For the same subject framing, you'll get a thinner DoF (and thus more OOF blur) at 55mm f/2.8 than at 105mm f/4. All that means is that for portraits with the 17-55mm, you'll need to move in closer - do that, and the quality will be better than you'd get from further away with the 24-105mm.
Both the EF 24-105mm f/4L and the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 are excellent 'general purpose' zoom lenses. For the uses you stated, I think you'll get more from the 17-55mm, but yes, you will sometimes miss the longer end. In my opinion, you're better off picking the best lens for the type of shooting you plan to do, then add other lenses later, as opposed to compromising at every step (the EF-S 15-85mm is a good example of a bad compromise for your needs).
Case in point, I have the 17-55mm f/2.8 and I'm considering buying the 24-105mm f/4L. Why? As an outdoor 'walkaround' lens - it will give me a weather-sealed combo with my 7D, and outdoors I'll be ok with f/4 for 'memory' shots of my toddler. Keep in mind - I'm not choosing the 24-105mm instead of the 17-55mm, but in addition to it, and they'll serve different purposes. Indoors, I'll reach for the 17-55mm for general use (24mm not wide enough, f/4 too slow). For sweeping landscapes, the EF-S 10-22mm. For indoor portraits, it would most likely be the 85mm f/1.8, outdoors that lens or the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II (but the 17-55mm would work there, too). Ok, I have a lot of lenses. But if someone forced me to give them all up except one, the EF-S 17-55mm would be the one I'd keep.
Having said that, for your purposes and if you don't have an aversion to 3rd party lenses, the suggestion above of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 plus the EF 85mm f/1.8 is something to consider. I'd still recommend starting with the EF-S 17-55mm then saving for the 85mm f/1.8, but that pair of lenses is at least a 'good' compromise.
I second what Neuro said.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote