File :-(, x, )
Hey /p/ Anonymous
Sorry for the shit thread, i just need some help

Okay so my tax return is coming back, i get 1300$ back (yay) which means im getting a fat new lens

Problem is, im kind of confunded.

I'm looking at the 17-55mm f2.8 canon lens - it is the most expensive of the bunch but i love how wide it is and also the extra 5mm means it just surpasses my only other lens (my 50mm 1.4) in terms of zoom.

My question to you guys is: Should i save the $500 or whatever and get the 3.5-5.6 or get the 2.8?

I mean honestly - a 2.8 still wont allow me to shoot in low light places, will it (i.e. concerts and stuff) so the only place id realy be using it would be like outdoors or with a flash. Does the extra stop or so really provide much of a difference? What's you guys' opinion on this?

Would really appreciate some help.
Pic related: its my gorgeous 1.4 <3
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:01:11 21:29:01Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/2.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating1000Lens Aperturef/2.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
that looks like a sweet rave, man
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
haha it wasnt, it was this derro house party, but i had heaps of fun there

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DCamera SoftwareMicrosoft Windows Photo Gallery 6.0.6000.16386Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:01:12 04:01:53Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating1000Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2592Image Height3888RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>243681
I really like this one...
Not sure on your question though. All I know is that I would love to have a 17-55 f/2.8. Great lens.

But not really comparable to your 50 f/1.4.
>> Anonymous
>>243660
You are getting your tax return in September?
>> Anonymous
>>243690

yes i am very very lazy.


Should i just get the 2.8 or save $500 or whatever and get a 3.5?

A 2.8 aperture would, of course, let in more light. But still not enough light to take concert photos, or even photos like these ones, am I right? Which means i would primarily be using it outdoors, or in places with good light, or with a flash.

I mean really would a situation ever arise where i'd be like "Fuck, i really wish i had shelled out that extra cash to get a 2.8"?

Also, i dont suppose a 2.8 aperture would be low enough to take good portrait photos, amirite? Plus i hear that portraits taken with a wide angle generally look weird and grotesque.
>> Anonymous
>>243696

not unless the person is fat.

if their fat then a wide angle is required....

fat people.. sicken me
>> Anonymous
It depends. What's your tolerance for and ability at shooting to avoid and/or work with motion blur? I've got concerts with a point and shoot (read: ISO 800 is a holy-shit-no-options deal) with an f/2.8 lens before, and pulled good shots. Depending on your style, you definitely could rock an f/2.8, because I've done it shooting several ISO stops below what a DSLR can.

...And looking at your EXIF you do. F/2.5 and /2.8. So what's your problem? Can you shoot concerts at f/2.8? It looks like you already do. Enjoy your delicious normals and wides.

Also,

>Exposure Program Normal Program

Cut that shit out. You're dealing with weird lights and a concert, turn it to M, and keep it there always.

>>243714
/P/ = /Fa/
>> Anonymous
uh, the 17-55 is over $1,000

you would save a whole lot fucking more than $500 if you get the 18-55

>> A 2.8 aperture would, of course, let in more light. But still not enough light to take concert photos, or even photos like these ones, am I right? Which means i would primarily be using it outdoors, or in places with good light, or with a flash.

are you fucking serious

it fucking says what exposure settings were used to take those pictures

and third

stop fucking trolling