Dave1 said:If you are considering spending the kind of money the 17-55 costs you should probably also consider the 15-85 which is slightly cheaper and arguably a better all round lens for most users.
jillybean said:Hi again - Shaylou what does the 17-55mm lens offer above the kit lens 18-55mm, other than the single max aperture?
If you are considering spending the kind of money the 17-55 costs you should probably also consider the 15-85 which is slightly cheaper and arguably a better all round lens for most users.
primrosegirl said:I know you weren't answering my post Dave but it does help with my question, posted on here a few days ago.
quote: I am considering changing the kit lens for the 15-85 for the extra width and zoom.....any thoughts on that, I would say I did consider the 17-55 because of it having a fixed f2.8 but as I already have the 50mm 1.4 it seemed the wrong way to go.
I know you weren't answering my post Dave but it does help with my question, posted on here a few days ago.
quote: I am considering changing the kit lens for the 15-85 for the extra width and zoom.....any thoughts on that, I would say I did consider the 17-55 because of it having a fixed f2.8 but as I already have the 50mm 1.4 it seemed the wrong way to go.
I always found 17mm plenty wide enough for my landscape shots and I was never hankering for anything wider.
I will admit that I did consider something ultrawide like the Sigma 10-22 but in the end I found that most of my pics were shot above 17mm so I decided not to although since moving to full frame I have my eye on a 14mm f2.8L ultra wide angle!
primrosegirl said:Yes Richard that's very true!
I just wondered if it will make a great deal of diference at the wide end, I want to be able to take landscapes, and really don't want to buy another lens to give me the width I'll need.
The 15-85 may give you a bit wider shoot but is it a useable shoot. Most lenses are not as good at the beginning and end of their focal range. Even the 17-55 is not as good at 17 as it is at 18. The 15-85 is not good at 15 and doesn't clear up till around 20m. It is also not very good on the long side at 85 either. So what one should consider is the "usable" focal range when comparing lenese. I'm not saying that either lens is the best choice for wide angle shoots because if that is what you are after you should consider a dedicated wide angle lens. I am saying the 17-55 is a good choice for a walk around lens because it can be used as wide as 18m for a excellent wide shoot without changing lenses. Point is if the 15-85 was as good in image quality as the 17-55 and was as fast it would be the lens to beat because of its range, but the fact is it is not.
primrosegirl said:I think I will go for the 17-55 Shayne, although I want it for landscapes I also want it to be a walk around also, and as Richard said he thinks it will be better for quality also!
So after just purchasing the 100mm macro, it will be a while before I can justify the outlay!
Thanks for all the exchange of ideas it's helped in decision making. I am going for the 17-50 Tamron only because of price & because also going for the canon 100mm macro! and my budget cannot support both regrettably! All your comments have been much appreciated.
Hi everyone,
well, I've finally gone and done it...after weeks of deliberation, I have finally dipped my toes into the DSLR market, and today ordered my 650D from Jessops.
I'm nervous and excited all at the same time, and I hope you guys will be able to help me through the learning curve I'm about to go on. As I couldn't find a 650D owners thread, I hope it's ok to pitch up here.
Hopefully, my new toy should arrive tomorrow, so I'm looking forward to experimenting with it, and chatting with you guys over the coming days, weeks etc.
primrosegirl said:Jilly, what a coincidence! How are you enjoying your 100mm? Did you get the L IS? I find it a bit heavy, but with the wonderful results you get, it's so worth it! I will wait until I can afford the 17-55mm, meanwhile continue to use my kit lens, which is not at all bad, but if all the comments are right..... ( which I'm sure they are ) it's going to be worth the wait!
primrosegirl said:Congrats Steve, I am a fairly new owner of a 600D, I don't know what the differences are between the two, but I'm sure you'll have fun with it.....I am!
stifflee said:Hi everyone,
well, I've finally gone and done it...after weeks of deliberation, I have finally dipped my toes into the DSLR market, and today ordered my 650D from Jessops.
I'm nervous and excited all at the same time, and I hope you guys will be able to help me through the learning curve I'm about to go on. As I couldn't find a 650D owners thread, I hope it's ok to pitch up here.
Hopefully, my new toy should arrive tomorrow, so I'm looking forward to experimenting with it, and chatting with you guys over the coming days, weeks etc.
Re the 100mm I think it will be the L IS although still bit unsure if really need the IS as likely to be using a tripod a lot. How do you find it, do you do much macro without tripod?
A friend of mine's been looking at the 600D but is tempted by the 650D and has asked me for advice.
Can anyone help me guide him on what's a better buy?
Thanks.
primrosegirl said:Jilly, if you're going to use a tripod all the time, you probably won't need IS. I normally just shoot when I see something, and don't have a tri/monopod available. The shot of the thistle was taken in a windy day hand held, the IS is amazing!
I.s. is like a fast lens. You might not need the extra light right now but you will miss it when you do need it.
IS will let you use longer shutter speeds as it can help eliminate camera shake.
IS is very handy to have, as long you remember to turn it off when using a tripod where it can introduce camera shake as it tries to compensate for movement that isn't there.
primrosegirl said:Jilly, if you're going to use a tripod all the time, you probably won't need IS. I normally just shoot when I see something, and don't have a tri/monopod available. The shot of the thistle was taken in a windy day hand held, the IS is amazing!
Thanks I would like the freedom without a tripod for more spontaneous shots - IS obviously really good so think its it for me!!
I moved up from an FZ45 to a 600D recently - got it with the kit lens but later bought Canon's 50mm f/1.8 II. Extremely satisfied with the results, especially in low light.
If you have 500 quid spare you can have mine as it doesn't fit on my 5DII!
primrosegirl said:I don't understand what you mean Shayne. Sorry being a bit stupid here!
Rico said:If you have 500 quid spare you can have mine as it doesn't fit on my 5DII!
What I mean is that wail your thinking about buying a lens, fast vs slow, I.s. vs non I.s you think about all the times you will not need the extra light or the stablization. Surely you will be fine during those times..
Its the times that you have what you think could be the perfect composition for a shot and you go to shoot it and realize that you don't have enough light.
It even worse when you take a shot and can't wait to see it at home only to realize its blurred because of camera shake.
Those my friend are the times you will miss not having the extra features.... that's all I mean by you wont miss them till you need them.
Hey Rico I'm not sure if I ask you this before but what lens did you go with to replace your 17-55 on your 5D? I am having a hard time deciding what I will go for as a walk around.
I also upgraded to a 600D from a FZ28....I still love it, I wouldn't part with it for the world! It's the one I grab first.
I agree the 50mm is terrific in low light, I got the 1.4, and love the results. I'm really enjoying the Canon, I went on a one day DSLR photography course with Jessops, and learned a lot!
The guys on here are very helpful too!
Hi guys,
anyone recommend a decent wireless remote?
Funny thing, I have stuck to Canon for almost everything I have (except filters) and it has not let me down yet. Well a few weeks ago I was going on vacation by myself and I thought it would be a good idea to have a remote for self portraits. The Canon remote was twice the price as aftermarket. I figured what's the point in spending twice the money, it's only a remote right. Guess what did not work wail I was in front of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco? Yep, the first none Canon product I bought failed miserably.... :bonk:
Point is you might consider going with name brand.
I went for the 24-70 f/2.8L. It's an awesome lens!
The 17-55 equates to 27-88 when you factor in the 1.6 crop sensor on the 600D so I loose something on the long end but gain some width which is great for me as I'm saving for a 70-200 f/2.8L.
If loosing the long end was a concern you could get the 24-105 f/4L IS but you loose the 2.8 which to me is more important than IS.
Which version did you go with 1 0r 2? I can't figure out what lens I will go with to replace my 17-55 when I go full frame. Each time I research it I end up back on the 24-70. I just don't know if I will like the none i.s. part. The other thing is what version of the 24-70 will i choose. If I go with the 5d mrk2 I will probably go with the first version. I read that the new version with the 5d mrk3 is absolutely superb because it takes advantage of the 24-70 latest updates (what ever that means) lol.
I'm very surprised that Canon did a new version of this lens and did not add the i.s. to it. There seems to be a big gap in choices for walk around lenses for full frame. They almost doubled the price but chose to leave this out again??
You are in for a treat with the 70-200! I have the 70-200 mrk2 and wow!
Sunday and Monday are the best nights weather permitting when the Perseid meteor shower is at it's peak with a predicted 100 meteors an hour.Meteor shower!!!
So I am thinking fo trying to get some shots of the meteor shower that is happening. I have heard that Monday of Tuesday next week is the best time.
Has anybody done anything similar as I would really appreciate some advice on settings to capture the best effect/picture.