Join for FREE | Take the Tour Lost Password?
[x]

deviantART

 

Poll: Which one would u rather have?

[x]  
:iconkoolhaus:
Well this summer I will be traveling to New York City and also LA. I will be shooting a lot of landscapes, street scenes, most probably people (candid) and also some indoor shots (lets say a Café;) or something and with my budget its really hard for me to get two lenses. So I have to go with the one that is more suitable for all of these purposes. Other than that I use the Canon 50mm 1.8 for the portraits and it’s a very good lens. I just want a good lens for this summer so I can take with me while traveling. I guess for the indoor shots like the Café and stuff I can use my 50mm f/1.8 because it does a really good job when there is not enough light. These are the lenses i have in mind..which one would you go with from the list considering i have a Canon Rebel XT (350D) which is not a full frame. Btw my budget is around 600$ so i have to get a lens from this list or something that fits my budget so please dont recommend something i cant get.

Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon 17-40mm f/4L

Sigma 24 - 70 mm f/2.8

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8


Tokina 12-24mm f/4

Devious Comments

love 0 0 joy 1 1 wow 0 0 mad 0 0 sad 0 0 fear 0 0 neutral 0 0
:iconrogue-designer:
the Canon 17-40 f4/L - hands down.

--
Vi veri universum vivus vici.
(Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.)
:iconeyeballman:
Agreed.

The 17-40L is the best lens by far. Use your nifty-50 (or a flash) for the low-light stuff.

--
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
:iconkoolhaus:
thank you rogue and eyeballman

the thing im hearing from my friend who recently purchased the 17-40 is that he was hoping for it to be amazing, but he is a bit disappointed with the sharpness. he told me i should also have the Canon 17-85mm f/4-5.6 and also the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 in mind. By the way my camera is not a full frame and soon like in couple of months im thinking of upgrading to a full frame so i want something to be useful for me when i get my full frame.

by the way this is out of topic but what is the cheapest Canon full frame? is it the 5D? its around 2000 thats sooooo expensive..i have to work my a$$ off to get that body.
:iconkoolhaus:
bump


i will be traveling soon, i need some recommendations before i fly off :)
:iconfallisphoto:
For street photos? I'd leave the SLR at home and take a rangefinder. That kind of photography is what they are made for.

--
I am a trained professional. Don't try this at home.
:iconkoolhaus:
i wish i had the money to be able to afford a rangefinder...

i have seen great reviews on the

Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II VC LD
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5

any thoughts on these?

i decided to go with a faster lens like the 2.8 or maybe a slower one but with IS and decided to stay with the crop body for now and maybe upgrade to another crop body such as the 50D instead of the 5D in the near future. So that leaves me with these options. Im not getting nice reviews on any of these lenses on B&H which makes it harder for me to choose one.

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3

Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
:iconsoundman1024:
IS is no replacement for fast glass. It helps if your subject doesn't move.

You had two recommendations from knowledgeable people above for the 17-40L. L glass means it'll be sharp and it'll work on full frame. Perhaps your friend's lens has deviated from factory specs..I don't hear complaints about soft L glass frequently. I'd put another vote in for it. L glass also means better build quality.

For your lenses above..
18-270 is a compromise lens. It'll be extremely soft relative to the 17-40L. It's also for a cropped body. Also the f/3.5-f/nothing isn't something I'd invest in.
10-22 is for a cropped body. I hear pretty good things about it..but I'm not sure it's a good compliment to a 50.
17-50 I've heard good things about it from the one person I know that has one, but again, cropped cameras only.
28-75 I've never heard of this lens, but a quick google of it doesn't make it look impressive. It looks usable when closed up 2 stops..leaving you at f/11 on the tele end to get a sharp photo.
17-85 I don't really know about it either.
:iconkoolhaus:
thanks soundman

well yea the 17-40L seems to be the best from the list but the only thing that makes me doubt abt getting it the f/4..i usually shoot with 200 ISO and i think with this lens i have to bump my ISO to around 800 in low light to get a decent shot..and to be honest i just dont like the noise..so thats why im not sure about the 17-40L..
:iconeyeballman:
The lens your friend recommended is even slower than the 17-40.

The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is only one stop. So if you shot f/2.8 at ISO200, you'd need to go up to ISO400 to get the same exposure at f/4.

Truth be told, your 50mm is one of the better lenses for low light. It's a 1.3stops faster than an f/2.8 lens, and will be much sharper than any of the f/2.8 lenses you've listed.

--
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin

Site Map