Which one is better? 17-55mm f/2.8 or 28mm f/1.8

S

Stefanie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
22
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello,

I need your opinion as I´m not sure which lens to buy next. I have the Canon EOS 60d and the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS which came with the camera and then the 50mm f/1.4
At the moment I mainly take photos of newborns for which the 50mm is great, only in very small rooms I get problems of pressing myself to the wall to get full body photos. But I also take lots of family photos for which the 50mm on my camera is too long and then I use the other lens. I realised I mainly use the other lens on 24mm. If there are several people in the photo I need to put the f number higher than 3.5 anyway, so would it make sense to buy a more expensive lens like the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS when I always have a higher f number anyway? Or is the quality of the photos significantly better with that lens, as well? Or I was wondering if maybe the 28mm f/1.8 prime lens would be better for me? But in March I´m supposed to take photos of a group of 10 adults with 5 babies and I was wondering if I can get them all into the picture with the 28mm on my crop sensor camera. If it doesn´t fit I can still use my other lens I guess, but was just wondering about the bild quality. Is the quality of the photos better with the prime than with that 17-55mm 2.8 zoom? Because the zoom is more than the double price and if I upgrade to a full frame camera, then I can´t even use that zoom lens anymore. Not sure what to do, please let me know your opinions.

Thanks a lot!

Stefanie
 
Similar situation to you. I really want the Sigma 18-35 1.8, just trying to decide if the focal range is wide enough, I am going to either go for that or maybe the 17-55 f2.8
 
The canon 17-55 f2.8 is a very versatile and fine quality lens. You will probably see no difference than using a prime.
Technically there should be, but in practice it is hard to see.

I bought a 24mm lens as I seemed to be using that Focal length on the zoom, quite a lot. However I have very rarely used it.
Few of the shorter canon lenses are modern computations ( they are carried over from film days) and are no better than many of their latest zooms.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
The canon 17-55 f2.8 is a very versatile and fine quality lens. You will probably see no difference than using a prime.
Technically there should be, but in practice it is hard to see.

I bought a 24mm lens as I seemed to be using that Focal length on the zoom, quite a lot. However I have very rarely used it.
Few of the shorter canon lenses are modern computations ( they are carried over from film days) and are no better than many of their latest zooms.
Click to expand...
Apart from when you step the prime down to 2.8 the image would be razor sharp as opposed to soft that you would get from the 17-55 and the CA isn't really that pretty on that lens ether. I'd go for the sigma 18-35 F/1.8 as I look at it as a 35mm prime with the ability to go wider to 18mm
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the comments so far. I didn´t even consider or notice the Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 before. Now that I know about it, it does really look good to me, just a bit more expensive than the 17-55mm although I saw it in an online shop for even cheaper than that. Now I´m torn, too. Can the Sigma lens also only be used for crop sensor cameras or on full frame ones, too? As that would be an advantage.

By the way what does CA mean?

lucky_13 said:
Apart from when you step the prime down to 2.8 the image would be razor sharp as opposed to soft that you would get from the 17-55 and the CA isn't really that pretty on that lens ether. I'd go for the sigma 18-35 F/1.8 as I look at it as a 35mm prime with the ability to go wider to 18mm
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Stefanie said:
Thanks for all the comments so far. I didn´t even consider or notice the Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 before. Now that I know about it, it does really look good to me, just a bit more expensive than the 17-55mm although I saw it in an online shop for even cheaper than that. Now I´m torn, too. Can the Sigma lens also only be used for crop sensor cameras or on full frame ones, too? As that would be an advantage.

By the way what does CA mean?
Click to expand...
No it's a crop sensor only if you want to go full frame in the near future than go for a 24-70 or 24-105 but clearly it wouldn't be as wide as 18mm having said that the 18-35 would fit on an FF (full frame) camera but you'll get a round image as the glass inside is smaller than the sensor. Why ask if it fits on FF?
Ps: you can get the sigma 18-35 from digitalrev.com for £530
 
Last edited:
Hello,

I just thought about it and it doesn´t matter to me if it could also be used on ff or not.

The only other thing I just read was. The Sigma 18-35mm has no image stabilization and the Canon 17-55mm has it? Is that right? And if yes does that make a big difference?
 
Stefanie said:
Hello,

I just thought about it and it doesn´t matter to me if it could also be used on ff or not.

The only other thing I just read was. The Sigma 18-35mm has no image stabilization and the Canon 17-55mm has it? Is that right? And if yes does that make a big difference?
Click to expand...
No it doesn't to both of your questions. I always used to think IS is a must for every lens snd ut isn't as at 1.8 and 18-35mm you will never use the IS as it's a wide angle. I only really use the IS if I'm shooting at 100mm with a 1/30 sec shutter
 
landwomble said:
The 17-55 isn't soft! If it was weather sealed and came in an EF mount it would be L glass.
Click to expand...
Yeeeaahhh but it's not. If I was a foot taller I could have been a basketball player but I'm not. Does L mean SHARP amd brilliant? I had a tamron 17-50 2.8 vc that was sharper @ 2? 8 than the canon 17-55 @ F/5.6
 
Last edited:
Kind of. I have one and it's great. I also have the fifty. I've never seen a review to contradict my experience of the 17-55 as being a very sharp lens.
Smoother bokeh than the fifty, too.
 
the canon 17-50 is the best of those out there in that zoom range, except perhaps for the Nikon version which is more expensive but full pro sealed.

I have never seen a soft version of the canon 17-50, those that actually have one know how good it is.

All lenses get better two stops down, and this is no exception. but it is fully usable at f2.8.

CA is about the same as an L glass in that focal range, and easily correctable.

IS is always helpful. at my age I would not cope without. though so macho types try.
 
Had a long conversation with the guy at my local camera shop about the 17-55 and to be honest he kinda convinced me to go with the 17-40L. I did mention that a lot of reviews say how good the 17-55 is and that it should have been an L but I suppose as he soon said to me is that why go for something that should have been when there is the 17-40 which is an L . Plus also there is the factor that it can go full frame?
 
I just had a look at the lens you bought Bobby and it´s actually not that expensive, but it starts at f/4 doesn´t it? I´d rather have one which has the option to let more light in. So don´t think that is an option for me, but thanks for mentioning it.
 
Bobby uk said:
Had a long conversation with the guy at my local camera shop about the 17-55 and to be honest he kinda convinced me to go with the 17-40L. I did mention that a lot of reviews say how good the 17-55 is and that it should have been an L but I suppose as he soon said to me is that why go for something that should have been when there is the 17-40 which is an L . Plus also there is the factor that it can go full frame?
Click to expand...

The 17-40mm f4 was designed as a wide angle full frame lens and IMVHO that's what it makes sense as. On APS-C it has IMVHO a rather ho-hum spec and performance, I'd much rather have a 17-50mm f2.8.

OP. If you are thinking about a 28mm f1.8 how about the Sigma 30mm f1.4? I had the original and loved it on my APS-C. I think there's a new version out now and if so it's probably even better.
 
17-40 is only F4 isn't it? On a crop the 18-35 sigma makes more sense with 1.8 or the 17-55 with 2.8. Both will let in more light and shallower Depth of Field. The 17-40 is designed as a wide angle landscape lens for FF, I'm sure it's very good and well built but anything indoor or low light won't be as good
 
Bobby uk said:
Had a long conversation with the guy at my local camera shop about the 17-55 and to be honest he kinda convinced me to go with the 17-40L. I did mention that a lot of reviews say how good the 17-55 is and that it should have been an L but I suppose as he soon said to me is that why go for something that should have been when there is the 17-40 which is an L . Plus also there is the factor that it can go full frame?
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with the 17-40 f4... except for the Zoom range and the smaller maximum aperture... neither would suit me, but then I am not a salesman with a living to make.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
There is nothing wrong with the 17-40 f4... except for the Zoom range and the smaller maximum aperture... neither would suit me, but then I am not a salesman with a living to make.
Click to expand...
To be honest i was after the 17-55 and he had both the 55 and 40 in stock at roughly the same price so i didn't really feel as though he had any reason to push for the 40.
As it goes i didn't end up buying either as he recommended returning with my camera to give them a go. To be honest im still pretty much undecided on either one any way. If anything im more confused as i had decided on the 55 but then obviously the 40 was suggested.
If they wasn't so bloody expensive I could just get both ay! :rolleyes:
 
Bobby uk said:
To be honest i was after the 17-55 and he had both the 55 and 40 in stock at roughly the same price so i didn't really feel as though he had any reason to push for the 40.
As it goes i didn't end up buying either as he recommended returning with my camera to give them a go. To be honest im still pretty much undecided on either one any way. If anything im more confused as i had decided on the 55 but then obviously the 40 was suggested.
If they wasn't so bloody expensive I could just get both ay! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Two deal breakers come to mind, If you are going FF canon, the 17-40 is the only choice
If you are staying with a crop sensor than the 17-55 holds the advantages with a wider range and better maximum aperture.
If it needs to be sealed then the 17-40 is better in that regard. but I have never had a problem and I have a rain cover and have never used it.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Two deal breakers come to mind, If you are going FF canon, the 17-40 is the only choice
If you are staying with a crop sensor than the 17-55 holds the advantages with a wider range and better maximum aperture.
If it needs to be sealed then the 17-40 is better in that regard. but I have never had a problem and I have a rain cover and have never used it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the advice. To be honest I struggle to find the funds for a lens so the chance of going FF is going to be pretty slim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top