Torn between 2 lenses

I

Invertigo

Messages
279
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
So, I'm stuck!

Currently have a 7D, 17-55mm f/2.8, 30mm f/1.4 and 70-200mm f/4. I'm half tempted to swap the 17-55mm out for a 24-105mm f4L, but really can't make up my mind, so any input would be appreciated!

I like having f/2.8 on my day to day zoom. It's nice to have that ability to totally throw the background out. f/4 on the 24-105 would lessen this, as well as any low light action (only gig photography really, and the 30mm would suit that perfectly)

It would be nice to have extra reach. The amount of times I'm wishing for a bit more zoom than 55mm is fairly often.

I don't think I'd miss the 7mm on the wide end, but as they say you never know a good thing until its gone. This could be remedied with an UWA at a later date though.

So, help! In terms of cost they're both very similar, so I expect no expense. Size and weight aren't an issue, and regardless I don't think you could find 2 lenses with as similar dimensions. I'm honestly stumped! :bonk:
 
I'd stick with it tbh.
 
7mm on the wide end is a lot more than I think you realise.

The next time you take a photo at 17mm, wind it on to 24mm and you'll soon realise that you couldn't live with a 38mm (1.6x24).
 
f2.8 every time. Ignore the L badge and would you still want the f4? :D
 
Badge? Mate its all about the ring.
 
The ring doesn't make a difference to me, as I know the 17-55 is about as close as you can get to an L without having it! I am leaning more towards keeping the 17-55 though, as its pretty damn useful to have IS AND f/2.8 sometimes!

Helps that its a cracking performer wide open too!
 
I was kidding...

And the 17-55mm seems to be the obvious choice really. I don't dabble in crop but the 15-85 might make a good walk around lens if you need the reach.

Even with full frame and 24mm I am forever longing for a wider view when walking about.
 
I've got an "L" elastic band dropped by the postman.
 
Invertigo said:
The ring doesn't make a difference to me, as I know the 17-55 is about as close as you can get to an L without having it! I am leaning more towards keeping the 17-55 though, as its pretty damn useful to have IS AND f/2.8 sometimes!

Helps that its a cracking performer wide open too!
Click to expand...

I'm a beginner and just bought a 17-55 over the L, mostly because of 2.8 and i.s. I went out and shot a bunch of pics wide open, close and zoomed but to my amazement all but a few came back out of focus. I rushed it to the repair center to get it checked out the next day. They told me it was fine and that I should expect it to not perform well wide open. They also said that this was normal for all lenses to have a good spot and a bad spot, so to speak. Does yours perform well wide open? Perhaps I need to try mine again to make sure it wasn't something I was doing wrong. I have only had it a few days but have been avoiding 2.8 sense that first day it happened. Seems like a bit of a waist considering that was one of the deciding factors of me buying it. What are your thoughts, I could use some guidance. Thanks.
 
shaylou said:
I'm a beginner and just bought a 17-55 over the L, mostly because of 2.8 and i.s. I went out and shot a bunch of pics wide open, close and zoomed but to my amazement all but a few came back out of focus. I rushed it to the repair center to get it checked out the next day. They told me it was fine and that I should expect it to not perform well wide open. They also said that this was normal for all lenses to have a good spot and a bad spot, so to speak. Does yours perform well wide open? Perhaps I need to try mine again to make sure it wasn't something I was doing wrong. I have only had it a few days but have been avoiding 2.8 sense that first day it happened. Seems like a bit of a waist considering that was one of the deciding factors of me buying it. What are your thoughts, I could use some guidance. Thanks.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a load of rubbish tbh. If a lens can't take a relatively sharp shot (and I'm not talking mind-blowing here, merely adequately sharp, especially in the centre), then there's something wrong with it. The alternative is that it's your error somehow. It's easily tested with the camera on a tripod and a remote release/timed release, ie taking you out of the equation temporarily.
 
shaylou said:
I'm a beginner and just bought a 17-55 over the L, mostly because of 2.8 and i.s. I went out and shot a bunch of pics wide open, close and zoomed but to my amazement all but a few came back out of focus. I rushed it to the repair center to get it checked out the next day. They told me it was fine and that I should expect it to not perform well wide open. They also said that this was normal for all lenses to have a good spot and a bad spot, so to speak. Does yours perform well wide open? Perhaps I need to try mine again to make sure it wasn't something I was doing wrong. I have only had it a few days but have been avoiding 2.8 sense that first day it happened. Seems like a bit of a waist considering that was one of the deciding factors of me buying it. What are your thoughts, I could use some guidance. Thanks.
Click to expand...

What camera have you got? Have you selected only the centre point AF sensor? Have you turned off "centre point expansion" in the custom functions if you have it? Are you in AI servo, AI focus or one shot focus mode?
 
The 17-55 has "L" optical quality though it is not sealed to the same standard. It is a cracking good lens.
I use the wide end most of all and would be very sorry to miss it. Even if you don't use the F2.8 it always helps with focusing.

I would stick with what you have and add to it when you have the cash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top