A common Lens Dilemma? Canon 17-55 vs 24-70?

[duncanapple]

So another thought - though this completely blows my one lens ideal and leaves me with the kit lens on the wide angles for the foreseeable future - I could always go with the 24-70 2.8L and retain the kit lens for the wide angles. Granted the kit lens is not ideal at all...

I honestly am not sure what to do. I just hate to rebuy stuff. Though at the same time I don't want to miss out on 3-4 years worth of pics by using the kits lens and waiting for the next upgrade either. I am just very indecisive in case you cant tell! But thanks for the discussion, it has been helpful and I am learning a ton! I will eventually just decide lol...

- Duncan

 

[Grimace]

I think that is a great idea.

If the wide angle stuff is usually outside and in plenty of light, the images will look just as good on the kit lens. It's only worth about $60 anyway so it is silly to throw it out if you want to go a bit wider.

 

[PCMacUser]

So another thought - though this completely blows my one lens ideal and leaves me with the kit lens on the wide angles for the foreseeable future - I could always go with the 24-70 2.8L and retain the kit lens for the wide angles. Granted the kit lens is not ideal at all...

What you're suggesting is not a bad idea, but you'll find that the 18-55mm kit lens is really poor quality compared with the 24-70mm. It lacks the sharpness and definition. For general photos though, maybe you won't notice. I've still managed to take some decent shots with it.

Samples I've taken with the 18-55mm. The one of the Colosseum in Rome is shot at 18mm, and the one of Venice is shot at 55mm.

 

[duncanapple]

Those are great - what setting (ISO, F, Shutter Speed) did you use for the night time one? Was it on a tripod?

Thanks -

 

[PCMacUser]

Those are great - what setting (ISO, F, Shutter Speed) did you use for the night time one? Was it on a tripod?

Thanks -

The Venice shot (night time) was f/5.6, 1.3 sec exposure, ISO400. It was not on a tripod, but balanced on a jetty.

The thing about EXIF data, is that it doesn't really help unless you were there to see what the lighting was actually like. Then you can associate the settings with real life light situations. For example, a similar shot could be achieved with a 0.5 second exposure - on a different night. Just something to think about.

Having said that, the aperture detail is always useful to know. If I could retake that shot today, I'd probably try it at f/8.0 as well, to get a sharper image. The effect that the consequently longer shutter speed would have had on the water would also be interesting.

 

[wheelhot]

nice shot, like you said, lighting is very important, it can make an uninteresting object become interesting, so always keep your eyes open on shots that you took before, just maybe this time with proper lighting it will be a better picture then last time.

 

[odinsride]

I had the same decision to make over the summer before my trip to California. I decided on the 17-55 just for the wider angle. It turned out to be an outstanding walkabout lens. I'll probably get a decent zoom lens in the future to cover that range, but for the most part I leave my 17-55 on my camera 90% of the time.

 

[frogger2020]

I don't need super telephoto or anything (obviously anything over 55mm is a bonus however) but I do want a good wide angle. My upcoming honeymoon to Hawaii begs for the widest shots I can get.

If you don't need telephoto, but do need wide angle then you choice should be obvious. The crop factor on the 24-70 is equivalent to 38mm at the widest (not very wide at all). The crop factor on the 17-55 is equivalent to 27mm at the widest, which is acceptable.

I have a 17-55 and it rarely leaves the camera. Image quality is spectacular.