what a dilema

SpikeK6

SpikeK6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,543
Name
Spike
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys I need some opinions/advice.

I have been pondering on the thought of getting the 17-55mm lens but i just cannot make the decision 100%.

I have the money thats not a problem, the problem is this, I have these lens already.

Tamron 10-24mm
canon 18-55mm (kit lens, seems a good copy)
Canon 28-135mm
Canon 100-400mm
Canon 100mm 2.8 macro.

Now in the last 6 months I have used the 18-55 lens 3 times so can I really justify spending over £600 on a lens I use once in a while. But when used I use it indoors for family stuff, portrates etc.
I was also looking at the 24-105 to replace the 28-135 that is aways on the camera as my walkabout/first choice lens.

What would you do in this postion, go for the 17-55mm to replace the kit lens or go for the 24-105L that would get used more??

all advice/ opinions welcome

Lens is to be on 50D

spike
 
I'd sell the kit lens or put it in a drawer and buy a quality 17-50mm f2.8 zoom but I don't think I'd go for the Canon, in fact I didn't.

Tamron and Sigma make lenses that are much more compact and lighter and that cost a lot less so you could take a look at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8.

I personally would find the 24-105mm too big, not wide enough and the f4 too restrictive.
 
Thanks alan

Already been down the route of which 17-** and the canon 17-55 wins hands down, but just started to think out of the box now

spike
 
I had the same dilemma, in the end I went for the 17-55. I thought that 24mm would not be wide enough for a walk around lens. Having made the purchase, I'm very pleased with the 17-55 (apart from the zoom creep), being able to go to f 2.8 is a great advantage over the 18-55 kit lens.

Chris
 
We have the same kit lens on a 50D (mine, which became my wife's camera). I have tested it close focus against her 60mm macro (which is supposed to be L quality) and I am amazed at how little difference in IQ there is, the build quality is another matter, so unless you are hammering the daylights out of the kit lens I'm just not sure its worth replacing with another lens if you have a good one (amazed at how many of them seem to be out there given the price/reputation). I'd hire the lens I was thinking of buying and compare before splashing £600 on a rarely used lens, or at least that's the sensible thing to do :)

Matt
 
Thanks Chris, The 2.8 is a good deciding factor

Thanks Matt, I did look closely at the kit lens and last time I used it was for partrates with 2 flashes and I was amazed at the quality of the pics.
There is no where here in Guernsey that hires out lens, I am going to go to my local shop tomorrow and ask to have a go with the 17-55 on my camera and take a couple of pics then come home and see what all the fuss is about.

I can get the 17-55mm off amazon brand new for £627, joys of living in Guernsey VAT free so 2nd hand is not really an option, see them go for £630-680 on ebay so new it is if I decide to go that way.

Spike
 
SpikeK6 said:
Thanks Chris, The 2.8 is a good deciding factor

Thanks Matt, I did look closely at the kit lens and last time I used it was for partrates with 2 flashes and I was amazed at the quality of the pics.
There is no where here in Guernsey that hires out lens, I am going to go to my local shop tomorrow and ask to have a go with the 17-55 on my camera and take a couple of pics then come home and see what all the fuss is about.

I can get the 17-55mm off amazon brand new for £627, joys of living in Guernsey VAT free so 2nd hand is not really an option, see them go for £630-680 on ebay so new it is if I decide to go that way.

Spike
Click to expand...
Are you going to use 2.8 much if you are using flash gun(s), nice to have but small dof and not used much is lifting the price.
Daylight shots might not show up much difference in the lenses, see if you can shoot in poor light. The 50D is quite tolerant of high(ish) Iso.

Matt
 
If you go Sigma then look at the EX range as these are made by a different team of people who take much more care with what they are doing so less chance of a duff one...apparently!
 
i own the tamron 17-50 2.8 and its great. its my walkabout lens on days out etc.
i'm sure you can pick one up s/h for a reasonable price (~£200 ish) could be a better financial option
 
The Tamron has great IQ, but I found my copy wasn't brilliant in the AF department. An upgrade to the canon 17-55 sorted that out. It is definitely worth the extra.
 
Thanks for all the replys, taken it all on board so off into town now to try it on the camera and see what comes of it.

Will keep you all informed

thaks again

spike
 
Well that was a waste of time, for all the good points, days like to day really let Guernsey down.

We have one camera shop and one Jessops (you know what I mean :lol:) well was not expecting Jessops to keep anything like the 17-55 or the 24-105 in stock so went first to the shop that keeps everything, yes you guessed it, everything except the 17-55 and the 24-105.
When asked why the assistant said, "oh lens of that price donot really sell", I said "you have one there for quite a bit more", she said "yes but they sell", I said what you mean is you donot keep them as they are not popular:bonk:
She said "yes thats what I meant but I can order you one"

Ok go along to Jessops and the guy just looked at me as though I was stupid when asking for the 17-55, he said canon do a 18-55 not the 17.
So I knew he was saturday staff so waited a little while and spoke to the guy who works there full time, and yes you guessed it "sorry sir we donot keep them in stock as they are not a popular lens but I can order you one" I said Im not supprised if you do not have any in stock":p

So I am still no further forward than I was 1 1/2 hours ago, going to have to go with my gut feeling me thinks.:thumbs:

spike
 
Ok just bit the bullet and bought a canon 17-55mm from amazon brand new for the great price of £627 delivered.

Thanks for all your advice again

spike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top