Old 07-15-2008, 10:17 AM   #26
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J Douglas Moore
I am planning to buy a 40D to repalce my EOS ELan SLR....... I have an old (1993 or so) tamron 28-200 AF Aspherical...... I understand that I will have a 1.6 conversion leaving me with not much wide angle, if I understand correctly. I like that glass as a good all purpose lens and it has taken massive abuse and keeps on ticking.................. I am gonna need some new glass soon..............

Comments??
I thought I would stay with Canon for continuity, but I ended up changing every single lens I had when I did the film/digital conversion. I went from 24-85, 70-300, 50 to 17-70, 70-200 f/4L (with the crop factor, didn't need the 200-300 range), 30 (my indoor shooting fixed focal length lens). So no lens kept from my film days.

Since then I have done some upgrading and expanding. The (very nice) 17-70 gone along with the 30 in favor of a 17-55 IS.

So, as it turned out, I could have switched to Nikon. I didn't care much between the two, so it turned out fine.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2008, 11:31 PM   #27
khalucha
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 425
Default

On this site, http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=141406
You just click on the link to the lens you are interested in and look at the photos that were taken with this lens. I have read a lot of good reviews on the 24-70 F/2.8L lens. A lot of posters said that it became their "primary walk around" lens on the reader reviews from B&H Photo.

As soon as I get the extra bucks I am going to pick one up. The next one after that will be the 70-200 f/4L.
__________________
Kevin
Phoenix, Arizona

Webshot Photos

flickr stuff
khalucha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 03:53 AM   #28
TAMR159
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by khalucha
On this site, http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=141406
You just click on the link to the lens you are interested in and look at the photos that were taken with this lens. I have read a lot of good reviews on the 24-70 F/2.8L lens. A lot of posters said that it became their "primary walk around" lens on the reader reviews from B&H Photo.

As soon as I get the extra bucks I am going to pick one up. The next one after that will be the 70-200 f/4L.
Both great pieces of glass! Throw in the 17-40 F/4L, and you've got my setup. The 24-70 especially is a great lens (and no, I wouldn't rather have a 24-105 F/4 IS - I've actually found myself below F/4 more than I thought I would when I first bought it). Image quality is fantastic, and it's razor sharp - you can't go wrong (except for, perhaps, the price tag...).
TAMR159 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2008, 02:15 AM   #29
Railfan1588
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 28
Default

I do agree with you guys that the 24-105L probably wouldn't be my best bet, as someone else mentioned, that would started me out around 38mm (film equivalent) which would be too far in.


The Canon 17-55 IS does seem like a good choice, since most of my shotting is done with my EFS 17-55. . That way, I could get those wide roster shorts, but yet I will still had some capability to zoom in. I do have an EF 75-300, but I tend not to use it as much.

One question I do have, would there be any real difference if I was to go with a 17-40L as opposed to going with the 17-55 IS?
Thanks for the help so far.
Nick Marakovits
Railfan1588 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2008, 02:33 AM   #30
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Railfan1588
One question I do have, would there be any real difference if I was to go with a 17-40L as opposed to going with the 17-55 IS?
Well, what do you mean by "real difference"? The loss of 40-55 is huge, for my way of shooting. I have this lens, and the loss of 56-70 compared to my former Sigma was huge!

As far as image quality, the 17-55 may be the best EF-S lens Canon makes, really sharp, excellent in every dimension. And one more f-stop compared to the 17-40, which is really designed not as a main lens for a crop body but as an ultra-wide for a full frame. So it's not fast. I do make use of the f/2.8 frequently, especially taking pictures of the kids.

But I can't recall for sure what I have read of the comparative image quality at f/4 and up, but my vague sense is that the 17-55 is fully the equal of the 17-40, if not better, in every way except build quality. And it had better be, given the extra $$$! Anyway, I am extremely pleased with mine (oops, except for the fact it is in the shop! ).
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2008, 02:35 AM   #31
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Railfan1588
One question I do have, would there be any real difference if I was to go with a 17-40L as opposed to going with the 17-55 IS?
Thanks for the help so far.
I have the 17-40 and have never felt the need for IS in that focal range, so I don't know why the 17-55 has it. The way I look at it, by the time I'm shooting too slow for hand held in that range, I'm probably going to be using a tripod anyway.

I've never used the 17-55, but I'm going to guess that the IQ might not be as good as the 17-40. And for around $600, the 17-40 is a good, affordable L lens to start out with.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2008, 12:54 PM   #32
Railfan1588
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 28
Default

I am still thinking about going with the 17-85 mm lens. But how does Canon's 17-85mm IS USM compare in quality to the 17-55 IS USM?
Nick
Railfan1588 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2008, 01:20 PM   #33
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Railfan1588
I am still thinking about going with the 17-85 mm lens. But how does Canon's 17-85mm IS USM compare in quality to the 17-55 IS USM?
Nick
I have read, but haven't experienced myself, that the 17-55 is generally better. Of course, not at 56-85! And I have read that the 17-85 is weak at one of its ends, I think the tele ennd. But I think it is more a matter of lens characteristics than quality. Would you rather have f/2.8 or would you rather have 56-85 (and five hundred dollars!)?
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2008, 01:48 PM   #34
Wizzo
Senior Member
 
Wizzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 545
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
I have read, but haven't experienced myself, that the 17-55 is generally better. Of course, not at 56-85! And I have read that the 17-85 is weak at one of its ends, I think the tele ennd. But I think it is more a matter of lens characteristics than quality. Would you rather have f/2.8 or would you rather have 56-85 (and five hundred dollars!)?
I looked at the 17-85 before deciding on the 24-105 F4L. The reviews were mixed, but tended to agree it was soft at the wide angle end of things, but pretty good at the telephoto end.
__________________
STEVE

Press here to see my pics on railpictures.net

More pics here D1059 on Flickr
Wizzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2008, 07:04 AM   #35
Switched out
Senior Member
 
Switched out's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Railfan1588
I am still thinking about going with the 17-85 mm lens. But how does Canon's 17-85mm IS USM compare in quality to the 17-55 IS USM?
Nick
Build Quality is the same, Optical quality the 17-55 F2.8 IS blows the 17-85 IS out of the water.

Christine.
Switched out is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2008, 10:42 AM   #36
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Switched out
Build Quality is the same, Optical quality the 17-55 F2.8 IS blows the 17-85 IS out of the water.

Christine.
the 17-85 sells for a bit over $600 17 -55 $1000 but its a 2.8
I have the 17-85 IS and the only resin i have it is the IS. If you want a good cheep lens, Canons EF 24-85 3.5 4.5 for a bit over $300 is sharp and cheep but no IS. I also have a Tamron 17-35 2.8 4 that i like but is a bit short and i don't need the 17 end much. so may sell soon.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/

Last edited by milwman; 08-01-2008 at 10:52 AM.
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.