File :-(, x, )
What do you suugest? Anonymous
i found a new job and now i have the money to buy lenses, i have a canon 350d, and was wondering what to get for it, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS or the 24-70 f/2.8 L

i'm not planning to advance to Full Frame in the near future, maybe i'll upgrade to a 50D or equivalent in the next 2 years, unless i win a lottery.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:02:27 19:41:06Exposure Time1/10 secF-Numberf/11.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/11.3Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length100.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1920Image Height1200RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
well then 17-55 f/2.8 it is.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>255443

What he said. :)
>> Anonymous
lol @ people buying crop lenses

enjoy your $1000 paper weights when everyone will be rocking full frame next year
>> Anonymous
>>255453
This is what sonyfags actually belive.
>> Anonymous
>>255453

come on now, you and i both know that crop lenses will still work on a 'LOL FF' camera, you'll just have to do some additional, you know, CROPPING in post.

hell, full frame cameras even give you framelines for crop lenses.

in other words, fail troll.
>> Anonymous
>>255468
Considering everyone knows it's CP, its successful troll as you've responded too it.

Idiot.
>> Anonymous
>>255468come on now, you and i both know that crop lenses will still work on a 'LOL FF' camera, you'll just have to do some additional, you know, CROPPING in post.

uh.. only on Nikon and Sony, Canon full frame can't use crop without modifying your shit or breaking it
>> Anonymous
>>255475

maybe canon should get their shit together and fix that. LOL @ Sony being able to and not canon.
>> Anonymous
>>255483

do you also want to LOL @ everyone else for not having a digital full frame for more than 5 years while everyone else tried to convince consumers APS-C was superior?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>255475
oh, i didn't know that. I;ve used a nikon ff that can do it and i've read about the sony being able to, so i sort of just assumed canons could too.

But you know what they say, when you assume, you make an ass of yourself.
>> Anonymous
OP, go with the 17-55 2.8

You'll be happy, wide range of situations that you can use this lens in. outdoors/indoors wide/normal

low light without flash its a very nice lens, I'm happy with it.

nice borkeh too @55 2.8. :)
>> Anonymous
>> low light without flash
>> 2.8

i fucking LOLd
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>255516
Yeah, the EF-S lens mount actually lets the rear element stick a little bit further back into the camera than the standard EF mount does. It makes it a bit easier to make wider lenses, but at the cost of putting your rear element in a position to get smacked by any mirror larger than APS-C.

(And given that Nikon and Pentax and Sony/Minolta managed to make equivalently-priced and equivalently-qualitied lenses for their crop cameras without resorting to the short-back-focus trick, it looks like it was a bad long-term strategy for Canon. Especially since it added an asterisk to their otherwise spotless lens forward/backward compatibility record on the EOS line)
>> Anonymous
>>255580(And given that Nikon and Pentax and Sony/Minolta managed to make equivalently-priced and equivalently-qualitied lenses for their crop cameras without resorting to the short-back-focus trick, it looks like it was a bad long-term strategy for Canon. Especially since it added an asterisk to their otherwise spotless lens forward/backward compatibility record on the EOS line)

short back focus lets them make the lenses smaller

the canon 17-55 is the same size as the nikon 17-55 but has IS

the canon 17-85 is the smaller than the nikon 16-85

the canon 18-200 is smaller than the nikon 18-200
>> Anonymous
its a great lens for general use, indoor and out. by low light without flash lens he probably meant for places like museums, etc.. At least thats what i took from it..
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>255590
>short back focus lets them make the lenses smaller
I think I'd prefer slightly larger lenses that won't become nigh unto worthless if I ever upgrade to a full-frame.

Also, based on the specs:
Canon EF-S 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 IS: 78.6mm x 162.5mm, 595g
Nikon AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 IF-ED: 77mm x 96.5mm, 560g

The 18-55 IS is smaller than the 18-55 VR, though. Too lazy to fact-check you on the others.
>> Anonymous
some people aren't emofags and could give a shit less about the slight weight differences in equipment.

Quality should be the deciding factor.
>> Anonymous
>>255606Quality should be the deciding factor.

This. All the other arguments about gear is pure faggotry. All that matters are the pictures.
>> Anonymous
>>255606
I have to dissagree.
Lets look on Canon 70-200/4 and 70-200/2.8 both are excellent lenses. Now why anyone want a /4 when he can get /2.8 ?
Cost and weight. Weight is quite important if you are going for a mountain trip with already heavy backpack.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>255610
>This. All the other arguments about gear is pure faggotry. All that matters are the pictures.
A dented, scratched 80-200 f/4.5-5.6 II will give you much better pictures than a pristine 70-200 f/2.8L IS that you left at home because it weighs too much.
>> Anonymous
>>255603The 18-55 IS is smaller than the 18-55 VR, though. Too lazy to fact-check you on the others.

the nikon 18-55 is smaller than the canon 18-55
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>255626
Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS: 68.5mm x 84.5mm, 200g
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR: 73 x 79.5mm, 265g

The Nikon is narrower, but longer. And weighs 65g more.
>> Anonymous
>>255625
This.
And that's why you DO NOT sell/throw away your kit lens and your shitty slow tele zoom when you buy fancy fast ones.
>> Anonymous
24-70 is HUGE and heavy, even on a 5D body it looks very "big-headed", with the hood mounted on you'll probably have problem finding your SLR body, at least that's what happened to me.
also the lens is 1kg in wight, makes it a pain in butt if you are having a long trip
the lens' zoom function is not designed to be fully internal, it will extend itself in the 24 end, make it less defensive against dust and water, even tho it is designed to be dust and water proof

put all those aside, 24-70 is an excellent toy if you insist with your image quality?the picture is very sharp and vivid in all range and aperture, the USM is very quiet and the focusing is very fast and accurate. in fact, it is the best zoom lens Canon has to offer in that range, all other EF zoom lens in that range are not even an option compare with this one's quality

also 24-70 is designed to be very professional in the appearance department as well, you'll surely caught a lot of eyes if you take this baby out

i haven't personally used 17-55, but i heard it is a good lens as well, but if you compare it with 24-70, i'd say 17-55 doesn't even stand a chance, in the image and design department that is
>> Anonymous
>>255829it is the best zoom lens Canon has to offer in that range, all other EF zoom lens in that range are not even an option compare with this one's quality

the 24-105 is better than the 24-70 at all comparable focal lengths at f/4

the 24-70's only advantage is that it can go down to 2.8

>>255829i haven't personally used 17-55, but i heard it is a good lens as well, but if you compare it with 24-70, i'd say 17-55 doesn't even stand a chance, in the image and design department that is

lol, sounds like another case of L faggotry

the 17-55 is the best zoom Canon makes in this range

it's even better than some fixed focal lenses stopped down to 2.8 when the 17-55 is wide open at 2.8
>> Anonymous
>>255829
The 17-55 fucks the shit out of the 24-70 and doesn't even stick around for breakfast.
>> Anonymous
The 17-55mm is fuck expensive though compared to a 18-55mm. The gains are small for such a heavy fee IMO.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>255973The 17-55mm is fuck expensive though compared to a 18-55mm. The gains are small for such a heavy fee IMO.
>> Anonymous
>>255974
I'm just saying this is just elitist faggotry. Fuck your f/2.8, wide for crop and USM.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
speak of 24-105, i think that lens is excellent for indoor activities, with the assist of some studio lighting, the skin color took with that lens is simply amazing, but for outdoor, the contrast is noticeably weaker compare with 24-70 when you take sky and landscapes, and without the designed lighting, the quality of the skin color will have a decent drop, it will still be better than 24-70, but the difference would be very slight, and also, another important reason which i wouldn't take this lens for outdoor, is it's dust proof capability, it's not weak, but it could be a problem depending on the environment, if you are going to take pictures in a construction site, i wouldn't suggest you take a 24-105.

and for 17-55, i can't use EF-S lens, so my speak here may not be accurate?but i do heard a lot of people call it a "dust collector", and the actual image the lens took from 20-30mm is very poor compare with other EF lens at the same range

the picture here is a comparison for 24-70 and 24-105, both took with a 1Ds Mark II body, at 70mm F4. i'd say it's hard to decide which one is better, only problem is, which one you like better

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:03:04 19:42:41Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width747Image Height999
>> Anonymous
What I'd like to know is how the USM is on the 17-55mm compared to it's older brother the 18-55mm with USM. I read that the 18-55mm USM lens suffered from chromatic abberation and a few folks have 'downgraded' to the standard and cheaper 18-55mm EF-S IS.
>> Anonymous
>>255977

wat
>> Anonymous
>>255991

I've had the 17-55 for a year and I've not had any dust inside. I know I'm not the only one to have had this. Then again I've seen L lenses with dust in side. The small amounts of dust doesn't really effect the image though.
>> Anonymous
>>255994

What the hell does the USM have to do with cromabs?
>> Anonymous
>>255994What I'd like to know is how the USM is on the 17-55mm compared to it's older brother the 18-55mm with USM. I read that the 18-55mm USM lens suffered from chromatic abberation and a few folks have 'downgraded' to the standard and cheaper 18-55mm EF-S IS.

are you fucking trolling?

USM has nothing to do with image quality

the 18-55 USM is the exact same as the 18-55 kit, except it has a micro USM motor instead of a dc micro motor, it doesn't focus any faster or more silently, it just has a nice ultrasonic logo on it

please be trolling
>> Anonymous
>>255991another important reason which i wouldn't take this lens for outdoor, is it's dust proof capability, it's not weak, but it could be a problem depending on the environment, if you are going to take pictures in a construction site, i wouldn't suggest you take a 24-105.

get the fuck out
>> Anonymous
Faggots who baby the shit out of their fucking gear like it's fine china bug the shit out of me. This stuff is for taking pictures so fucking use it as such. If it gets dust in it you fucking clean it out.
>> Anonymous
>>256005
>>256005
I do not posses enough knowledge of the two lenses to be honest. I was just going by a review someone left on Bristol cameras website saying he dumped the more expensive lens for the one without the USM because of abberation. Perhaps he just got a bad lens.
>> Anonymous
>>255439
You can't use your 17-55 f/ 2.8 on a full frame. EFS lenses only work on crop bodies.
>> Anonymous
>>256413

Moron. He knows that.

>i'm not planning to advance to Full Frame

GTFO, faggot.
>> Anonymous
>>255991
I've shot on construction sites with a non-weathersealed consumer superzoom camera, which came out with no problems. So I think the 24-105L would be just fine.
>> Anonymous
>>256031
god, i fucking lov you. i hate it too man. i get my camera and an extra lens and throw it in a bag, and go. that's why you have fucking insurance.
>> Darkain
>>255439

"We know, for example, that of all Canon lenses the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is most likely to develop electronic problems."

source: http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.01/quality-control-improvements