Best "walkabout" lens (canon)

jnO said:
Just been into a Jessops and had a play with a 24-105 L IS and a 17-55 f2.8 EFS. Both really nice but if I had to get one as a walkaround it would be the 24-105. Colours were gorgeous. However I have decided WA shots are not really for me so I don't mind the slightly longer focal length of the 24-105 on a crop body.
Click to expand...

(y)100% agree
 
daugirdas said:
Hence 17-55mm IS is one of the riskiest purchases.
Click to expand...


Buying proven quality is never a risk. The digital picture said:

Prior to receiving my Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens, I stated that I expected its image quality to match or nearly match that of Canon's L Series Lenses as it shares the L-Series UD lens elements. As it turns out, my 17-55 matches or exceeds the optical performance of my L-Series zooms in this similar focal length range ...
Click to expand...

With Canon releasing the 7D as a 1.6x FOVCF I think the crop is set to be around for a while to come anyway. Even then a second hand 17-55mm IS fetches a good price as it is quite rare it comes up for sale. So no, I don't think it is a risky purchase.
 
daugirdas said:
In the old days most people including pros used to do just fine with 50mm and took excellent photos. 24-105mm does much more than that on either crop or FF. I don't see a reason why a super duper extremely ultra wideangle is a must for a walkabout. Yes, 24-105mm is better on FF, so maybe then it is time to change the camera instead of buying the nearly obsolete EF-S lenses?
Click to expand...

Clearly a statement that doesn't stand up to any objective scrutiny at all.

EF-S and crop format cameras are very much here to stay. Micro 4/3rds is growing too.

Far from taking over, full frame will become increasingly niche, high end, expensive. Which is fine if you can afford it, and are prepared to hump a lot of big heavy kit around. But most people cannot, and are not.
 
Is it me? Canon have 1 'current' full-frame camera? (5D Mk II). The 1D MkIII is 1.3 crop, the 7D is 1.6 crop, all other amateur/consumer cameras are 1.6 crop.
They have just created a new 'pro'/'high end' market in the 7D, and this is 1.6 crop.

Now, I am not a business-man, but if I were removing the use of 1.6 crop lenses (aka EF-S), I wouldn't be doing what currently appears to be being done.
 
It is you, Canon currently have two FF cameras, the 1DsMk3 and the 5DMk2.

1DMk3 is 1.3 crop

All other current bodies are 1.6 crop.
 
Radiohead said:
Clearly a statement that doesn't stand up to any objective scrutiny at all.

;)
Click to expand...

;)

Well, full frame currently is niche, high end and expensive. It is the single defining characteristic of the most expensive cameras. I see no reason for that situation to change, and quite a lot of evidence for smaller formats like APS-C and 4/3rds to grow - smaller, cheaper cameras, ditto lenses with more range, smaller sensors which already deliver more image quality than most people need, and getting better all the time.

The major manufacturers need a premium line as part of their business plans and marketing strategy. High spec and low volume sales dictate a high unit cost. There is no incentive for them to introduce full frame to the mainstream consumer range.

From a customer perspective, there is no evidence that the majority of enthusiasts need the benefits of full frame, are willing to put up with the compromises it entails, or are prepared to pay for it. That is the overwhelming evidence.

I submit that the foregoing stands up to objective scrutiny :D
 
Radiohead said:
The 17-55mm IS is in NO way a risky purchase.
Click to expand...

Well, of course it is in some ways. Firstly, it's an efs lens, so it's a risk if you plan to upgrade to FF later. Secondly, there are an exceptionally large amount of dust complaints with this lens. To the point where people have to purchase seperate filters just to keep it out.
 
I've just realised my reply adds absolutely nothing to the original thread topic. Please ignore me.
 
HoppyUK said:
;)

Well, full frame currently is niche, high end and expensive. It is the single defining characteristic of the most expensive cameras. I see no reason for that situation to change, and quite a lot of evidence for smaller formats like APS-C and 4/3rds to grow - smaller, cheaper cameras, ditto lenses with more range, smaller sensors which already deliver more image quality than most people need, and getting better all the time.

The major manufacturers need a premium line as part of their business plans and marketing strategy. High spec and low volume sales dictate a high unit cost. There is no incentive for them to introduce full frame to the mainstream consumer range.

From a customer perspective, there is no evidence that the majority of enthusiasts need the benefits of full frame, are willing to put up with the compromises it entails, or are prepared to pay for it. That is the overwhelming evidence.

I submit that the foregoing stands up to objective scrutiny :D
Click to expand...

Come back in 5 years and let's talk.
 
fly my pretties said:
Well, of course it is in some ways. Firstly, it's an efs lens, so it's a risk if you plan to upgrade to FF later. Secondly, there are an exceptionally large amount of dust complaints with this lens. To the point where people have to purchase seperate filters just to keep it out.
Click to expand...

That's not a risk - that's just selling and buying. No different to buying any lens and not specific to EF-S.

Dust is a fact of life with a lot of lenses - again not specific to EF-S. The point being made was that the 17-55 is a risky lens simply because it's EF-S which, looking at the 7D launch, is patently absolute nonsense.
 
I have both the 17-40 L and the 24-70 L and am finding more and mote the the 17-40 is on the camera , why?

Well weight and perspective win the day if I am shooting street the crop factor on my camera body 1.3 make it ideal for candids as well as buildings.

I still use the 24-70 but more for group shots or when the light is low.
 
Radiohead said:
That's not a risk - that's just selling and buying. No different to buying any lens and not specific to EF-S.

Dust is a fact of life with a lot of lenses - again not specific to EF-S. The point being made was that the 17-55 is a risky lens simply because it's EF-S which, looking at the 7D launch, is patently absolute nonsense.
Click to expand...

Then my point stands and it's not nonsense at all. Buying an EFS lens that costs £800 is absolute lunacy in my opinion. I'm of the belief that if you are willing to spend £800 on a lens, then you are obviously serious about photography. At some point, there's a possibility you are going to upgrade to FF, and your £800 then becomes useless. I'm a firm believer in hedging your bets, and I'd never purchase an EFS lens unless it represented throwaway value for money. £800 does not.

And I wasn't saying the dust was specific to EFS, I was saying it was particularly prevelant in the 17-55 IS lens. There are hundreds of complaints about it all over the internet.
 
fly my pretties said:
Then my point stands and it's not nonsense at all. Buying an EFS lens that costs £800 is absolute lunacy in my opinion. I'm of the belief that if you are willing to spend £800 on a lens, then you are obviously serious about photography. At some point, there's a possibility you are going to upgrade to FF, and your £800 then becomes useless. I'm a firm believer in hedging your bets, and I'd never purchase an EFS lens unless it represented throwaway value for money. £800 does not.

And I wasn't saying the dust was specific to EFS, I was saying it was particularly prevelant in the 17-55 IS lens. There are hundreds of complaints about it all over the internet.
Click to expand...

How can buying a lens that is as good, if not better than an L lens on a crop be 'lunacy' when the crop market is so large? Even selling it second hand you can get back £600, if you buy it second hand and sell it if you go FF you probably wouldn't even lose money.

Buying proven quality is never a risk, it will always find a market.
 
There is a widely held belief on these forums that if you are using a crop sensor camera, you are somehow using inferior equipment and are obviously only doing so until you can afford full frame. And it's utter b*ll*cks.

Not buying a lens because one day it may or may not fit a camera that you may or may not buy is, I would suggest, the lowest priority on the list of whether or not to buy, ranking somewhere below lens colour and whether or not it co-ordinates with your curtains
 
fly my pretties said:
Then my point stands and it's not nonsense at all. Buying an EFS lens that costs £800 is absolute lunacy in my opinion. I'm of the belief that if you are willing to spend £800 on a lens, then you are obviously serious about photography. At some point, there's a possibility you are going to upgrade to FF, and your £800 then becomes useless. I'm a firm believer in hedging your bets, and I'd never purchase an EFS lens unless it represented throwaway value for money. £800 does not.

And I wasn't saying the dust was specific to EFS, I was saying it was particularly prevelant in the 17-55 IS lens. There are hundreds of complaints about it all over the internet.
Click to expand...

Moving to full frame isn't always an upgrade and nor is it an inevitability for 'serious' photographers. Many people choose to stay with the benefits of a cropped sensor and consider full frame to be a step in the wrong direction.

I've owned a EF-S 17-55. It was and still is, in my opinion, the best walkabout lens for a Canon cropped camera.

I've also seen many complaints about dust within the 17-55, but I've never seen anyone come up with an image and proved any the dust was actually visible in the end result.

If you think a bit of dust inside a lens is going to cause issues then have a look at this.
 
Dudie said:
Not buying a lens because one day it may or may not fit a camera that you may or may not buy is, I would suggest, the lowest priority on the list of whether or not to buy, ranking somewhere below lens colour and whether or not it co-ordinates with your curtains
Click to expand...

I've found it cheaper to redecorate the room in black (I hope to paint a red line in at some time in the future.)

BTW, I bought the 17-55 that Will (Digitalrelish) sold and it is a brilliant lens.
 
Dudie said:
There is a widely held belief on these forums that if you are using a crop sensor camera, you are somehow using inferior equipment and are obviously only doing so until you can afford full frame. And it's utter b*ll*cks.

Not buying a lens because one day it may or may not fit a camera that you may or may not buy is, I would suggest, the lowest priority on the list of whether or not to buy, ranking somewhere below lens colour and whether or not it co-ordinates with your curtains
Click to expand...

(y) At last someone talking sense!!
 
fly my pretties said:
Then my point stands and it's not nonsense at all. Buying an EFS lens that costs £800 is absolute lunacy in my opinion. I'm of the belief that if you are willing to spend £800 on a lens, then you are obviously serious about photography. At some point, there's a possibility you are going to upgrade to FF, and your £800 then becomes useless. I'm a firm believer in hedging your bets, and I'd never purchase an EFS lens unless it represented throwaway value for money. £800 does not.

And I wasn't saying the dust was specific to EFS, I was saying it was particularly prevelant in the 17-55 IS lens. There are hundreds of complaints about it all over the internet.
Click to expand...

No. Buying an £800 EF-S lens does in no way mean you're a lunatic. Don't equate serious about photography with full-frame. It's an utterly specious argument and one that makes no sense whatsoever. The 7D and D300 should give you an idea as to why.

I shoot FF exclusively, but I don't for a minute think that anyone shooting crops is less serious than me. Not even close.

I think you need to revisit your beliefs here - they seem off base to me.
 
Dudie said:
There is a widely held belief on these forums that if you are using a crop sensor camera, you are somehow using inferior equipment and are obviously only doing so until you can afford full frame. And it's utter b*ll*cks.

Not buying a lens because one day it may or may not fit a camera that you may or may not buy is, I would suggest, the lowest priority on the list of whether or not to buy, ranking somewhere below lens colour and whether or not it co-ordinates with your curtains
Click to expand...

Spot on. I think people feel they need to add "one day I will be going FF" in the belief that somehow it adds to their credibility. For me, the more I get into photography the less important the gear becomes because it becomes more about technique & personal 'style'. Having a FF camera and latest expensive lens won't give you the results unless you have the knowhow to use them. People are taking amazing photo's with the most 'entry level' equipment.
 
Radiohead said:
No. Buying an £800 EF-S lens does in no way mean you're a lunatic. Don't equate serious about photography with full-frame. It's an utterly specious argument and one that makes no sense whatsoever. The 7D and D300 should give you an idea as to why.

I shoot FF exclusively, but I don't for a minute think that anyone shooting crops is less serious than me. Not even close.

I think you need to revisit your beliefs here - they seem off base to me.
Click to expand...

I never said people shooting crop are less serious than those shooting FF, I didn't even insinuate that. What I said was that anyone who is serious about photography, is, at some point, going to want to switch to full frame.

Someone can be just as serious about photography and shoot with a crop camera, but at some point, they will be in the boat to switch to FF. Barring exceptions, I'm afraid that is quite simply the rule.
 
DigitalRelish said:
Moving to full frame isn't always an upgrade and nor is it an inevitability for 'serious' photographers. Many people choose to stay with the benefits of a cropped sensor and consider full frame to be a step in the wrong direction.

I've owned a EF-S 17-55. It was and still is, in my opinion, the best walkabout lens for a Canon cropped camera.

I've also seen many complaints about dust within the 17-55, but I've never seen anyone come up with an image and proved any the dust was actually visible in the end result.

If you think a bit of dust inside a lens is going to cause issues then have a look at this.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm not knocking the lens, it's an amazing lens.
 
fly my pretties said:
I never said people shooting crop are less serious than those shooting FF, I didn't even insinuate that. What I said was that anyone who is serious about photography, is, at some point, going to want to switch to full frame.

Someone can be just as serious about photography and shoot with a crop camera, but at some point, they will be in the boat to switch to FF. Barring exceptions, I'm afraid that is quite simply the rule.
Click to expand...

Best you tell that to the thousands and thousands of sports pros shooting APS-H then....And the wildlife ones.

There are many to whom FF means nothing. They never shot film.
 
Dudie said:
There is a widely held belief on these forums that if you are using a crop sensor camera, you are somehow using inferior equipment and are obviously only doing so until you can afford full frame. And it's utter b*ll*cks.
Click to expand...

Well, no, that's quite simply a fact. All of Canon's and Nikons current crop cameras are inferior to their current full frame counterparts. That's why they're cheaper.
 
Radiohead said:
Best you tell that to the thousands and thousands of sports pros shooting APS-H then....And the wildlife ones.

There are many to whom FF means nothing. They never shot film.
Click to expand...

You can't use a 17-55IS on a APS-H, what is your point?

I'm simply talking about spending money on a lens that sticks you to one sensor. I don't want to make enemies here, but I'm quite simply right. It's bad economics.
 
Bloody hell, traffic to my blog has really spiked since I disagreed with the lens.

THE 17-55 IS FOR GYPOS!

:)
 
fly my pretties said:
You can't use a 17-55IS on a APS-H, what is your point?

I'm simply talking about spending money on a lens that sticks you to one sensor. I don't want to make enemies here, but I'm quite simply right. It's bad economics.
Click to expand...

You're talking about FF vs crop as an absolute. And for that reason you're quite simply wrong.

As for bad economics. I'll bet that 17-55 retains more value than a Sigma 24-70.
 
fly my pretties said:
I don't want to make enemies here, but I'm quite simply right.
Click to expand...

:LOL: All I see is someone relaying misguided opinion as absolute fact. But hey, it's your money, go nuts. Just don't expect me to attach any credibility to your statements.
 
I don't go nuts, that's my whole argument. Go nuts if you want to blow £800 on a lens you can only use with one kind of camera.
 
For someone who shoots wildlife, what lens would they put on a Full Frame camera, in order to give them the equivalent shot for an 800mm lens?
Does this mean, if in reality everyone who owns a crop camera, is really a closet Full Frame luster, that everyone who owns full frame is really a closet medium format luster?
 
Worth reading:

http://www.bythom.com/2009 Nikon News.htm

Sept 14 (commentary)--I had another Aha! moment this morning answering emails. One of the most common things I see in my In Box is the statement "I'll eventually get an FX body." This usually comes in conjunction with the "all I can afford now is DX" and "but lens choices are problematic" statements. People worry that by buying DX now they're committed lens suicide, as they won't have the right stuff when they move to FX.

First, even if you buy a DX lens today, it's not as if its value plummets to zero tomorrow. We've got almost 9 million DX users already, and that number is growing. Just as Nikon lenses have always retained some value over time, I think DX lenses will do the same. So consider that you'll lose 20-40% of the value of the lens as a rental charge.

But that wasn't my Aha! moment. While I've long told people that I didn't think shooting with FX in the future was inevitable--sensor pricing means DX will always be more affordable than FX--what I realized this morning is that quite a few pros I know have downsized from what they were shooting with film and are perfectly happy. I know 4x5 and 8x10 film shooters who now shoot MF digital. I know MF film shooters who now shoot FX. And I know plenty of 35mm film shooters who now happily shoot DX.

Digital downsized us all. In retrospect, it's easy enough to see why. ISO 800 was acceptable with 35mm film, but more than acceptable with DX digital, for example. At the high end where "size matters," to get the best quality prints most folk had moved to using digital scanning. While you can scan large format film quite high in terms of pixel count, above a certain point you mostly start resolving grain (which does hold some additional information, but which is difficult-if-not-impossible to make into grainless information). Moreover, the cost of scans starts running very high, so you per-image costs run extremely high. Thus, very high pixel count MF backs started to become appealing to the LF film crowd at some point.

I'd say there's a built-in bias towards smaller, not larger, at least if the image quality doesn't suffer much. My mentor used to get asked a lot about why he didn't shoot MF film. His answer was simple: because I can't get MF equipment into the places where I take images (he was an adventurer and climber). Most of us have a built-in bias for smaller. Large format film landscape photographers, for instance, were notorious for taking one shot a day, and never very far from their vehicle, as the equipment was too big and bulky. I'm sure someone must have done it, but I don't know anyone personally who took an 8x10 film camera to the Wave (a famous scenic point in the US that's accessible only on foot over tough terrain). But I know MF digital photographers who have.

No, I don't think we're all going to be shooting FX bodies in the future. I'll bet we all end up at least one size smaller than we were with film, maybe more.
 
Radiohead said:
Corrected for you.
Click to expand...

I get your point, you've squirreled down this argument into a certain genre of photographer in order to strengthen your perspective.

I concede that if you are a wildlife photographer or someone who needs a higher zoom and framerate, you will be looking for the fastest and longest camera you can get.

So yes, if you shoot wildlife or sports, you'll probably need a crop sensor. In which case, why on earth would you purchase a 17-55?

This argument is ridiculous.

Here is how it is:

It is MY firm belief that the majority of people on this forum who own a crop camera, would invariably LIKE to own the top of the line camera in their range. Invariably still, this top of the line camera is likely, nay, definitely, going to be a full frame camera.

Thus, in my opinion, for it's price, the 17-55 doesn't represent very good value for money, because it can only be used with one particular range of cameras.

Thus concludes the general outline of my personal opinion.
 
fly my pretties said:
I get your point, you've squirreled down this argument into a certain genre of photographer in order to strengthen your perspective.

I concede that if you are a wildlife photographer or someone who needs a higher zoom and framerate, you will be looking for the fastest and longest camera you can get.

So yes, if you shoot wildlife or sports, you'll probably need a crop sensor. In which case, why on earth would you purchase a 17-55?

This argument is ridiculous.

Here is how it is:

It is MY firm belief that the majority of people on this forum who own a crop camera, would invariably LIKE to own the top of the line camera in their range. Invariably still, this top of the line camera is likely, nay, definitely, going to be a full frame camera.

Thus, in my opinion, for it's price, the 17-55 doesn't represent very good value for money, because it can only be used with one particular range of cameras.

Thus concludes the general outline of my personal opinion.
Click to expand...

No it's not - it's about not being so arrogant as to assume that what I need from a camera is what everyone needs. So I shoot wildlife and like the accuity and FOV that a 500mm gives me but sometimes I like to shoot closer stuff. I don't want a 24-70mm because it's not wide enough but I don't fancy carrying an UWA as well, so I'll have that 17-55. I'm serious about my photography so want the best I can get. For Canon and Nikon that's the 17-55mm lenses from each maker. Can you really not see how narrow-minded you're being here?

And that top of the line camera for Canon owners who shoot sports or need speed ain't a FF. Nikon's is, but gives both a 1.5x crop and a 5x4 crop option.

Now, any chance you can stop confusing your opinion with fact? It's getting pretty tedious now. And my apologies to the OP for helping to derail thread. I think my position is clear.

Back to the advice for the OP.
 
Radiohead said:
No it's not - it's about not being so arrogant as to assume that what I need from a camera is what everyone needs. So I shoot wildlife and like the accuity and FOV that a 500mm gives me but sometimes I like to shoot closer stuff. I don't want a 24-70mm because it's not wide enough but I don't fancy carrying an UWA as well, so I'll have that 17-55. I'm serious about my photography so want the best I can get. For Canon and Nikon that's the 17-55mm lenses from each maker. Can you really not see how narrow-minded you're being here?

And that top of the line camera for Canon owners who shoot sports or need speed ain't a FF. Nikon's is, but gives both a 1.5x crop and a 5x4 crop option.

Now, any chance you can stop confusing your opinion with fact? It's getting pretty tedious now. And my apologies to the OP for helping to derail thread. I think my position is clear.

Back to the advice for the OP.
Click to expand...

I am sorry but it just not that obvious. If I wanted a stop gap 17-50mm I'd get Tamron or Tokina for less than half the price and will give excellent performance (I was seriously considering one). £800 DX lenses don't make any sense to me, that money would buy me 5D mk1 or 1D mk2 that would go well with my other glass. For somebody less into photography Tamron lens is more than they really need. The whole point of DX is smaller and cheaper system, not more dust and more expensive.
 
You do like to bang on about dust don't you. Show me a shot where it's a problem on the 17-55. I've used plenty of 'dusty lenses' and not one has shown up in the real world.

Buy cheap, buy twice. The 17-55 is L in all but name.
 
daugirdas said:
I am sorry but it just not that obvious. If I wanted a stop gap 17-50mm I'd get Tamron or Tokina for less than half the price and will give excellent performance (I was seriously considering one). £800 DX lenses don't make any sense to me, that money would buy me 5D mk1 or 1D mk2 that would go well with my other glass. For somebody less into photography Tamron lens is more than they really need. The whole point of DX is smaller and cheaper system, not more dust and more expensive.
Click to expand...

I've highlighted the critical points above.

Again, confusing your needs with everyone elses.

Seriously - this is mental - why on earth do you care what others spend their money on. Stop trying to dictate peoples' spending by talking about kit you've probably never used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top