2002. 8 years cycle lor. but primes can last for a decade and a bit more. lol...your 24-70 will definitely not be obsolete. no worries. its juz IS and non-IS...and besides the price will surely be ridiculously high for those who want the IS. =/ 70-200 f4 is and non is is about 1k diff. so i tink we shld expect the same for 24-70 is and non is. i don't think i'll pay like 3k for a 24-70 IS. it will be a VERY expensive walkabout. i'd rather choose the 24-105 IS over it. i think now i'm in love with primes though...haha! but primes is cost inefficient and its ridiculous changing lens while walking about places like orchard road. imagine the dust!
17-55 vs 15-85 lens
- Thread starter kohpee
- Start date
- Status
Need u guys for HELP
After reading all the post I still can't make up my mind which len to go for the 7D... 15-85 or 17-55.
So need more input from u guys.
I using for...
Fast action sports(distance to the subject 3m to 20m) like mountain biking, beach volleyball etc...
Group shot, Landscape, Beach
I can only afford to buy one lens.
Thanks
After reading all the post I still can't make up my mind which len to go for the 7D... 15-85 or 17-55.
So need more input from u guys.
I using for...
Fast action sports(distance to the subject 3m to 20m) like mountain biking, beach volleyball etc...
Group shot, Landscape, Beach
I can only afford to buy one lens.
Thanks
Cartman2000
Senior Member
Indoor or outdoor sports? 17-55 is faster, but the zoom range isn't that much. The max aperture for the 15-85 at 85mm is f5.6, which isn't great if you're shooting fast action indoor sports. In my opinion, the 17-55 is still a better all-around lens.
KY1977
New Member
I'll take the 15-85 since most of the scenarios you mentioned are in good light.
Hey I've seen some people go mountain biking at dusk :bsmilie:
18-200mm IS or 15-85mm
Last edited:
I have owned and still own a couple of the different popular lenses ... ...
1. 24-70L f2.8
2. 24-105L (sold) X 02
3. 18-200is
4. 17-85is
5. 50 f1.8 (sold) X 02
6. 50 f1.4 (sold)
7. 70-200 f4
8. 70-200 f2.8 (sold)
9. 28-135is (sold) X 02
10. 10-22
11. 28-105 (sold)
12. Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (sold)
13. 17-40L f4 (sold)
14. 24-85 (sold) X 02
15. 100-300 (sold)
16.18-55 (sold) X 03
17. 17-55 f2.8
Having experienced and compared to many other lenses, I still think that the 17-55 is one of the nicest lens around! In terms of sharpness (Even contrast), it totally killed my 24-70 and 24-105. Poor Built quality? Who cares!? ;p
1. 24-70L f2.8
2. 24-105L (sold) X 02
3. 18-200is
4. 17-85is
5. 50 f1.8 (sold) X 02
6. 50 f1.4 (sold)
7. 70-200 f4
8. 70-200 f2.8 (sold)
9. 28-135is (sold) X 02
10. 10-22
11. 28-105 (sold)
12. Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (sold)
13. 17-40L f4 (sold)
14. 24-85 (sold) X 02
15. 100-300 (sold)
16.18-55 (sold) X 03
17. 17-55 f2.8
Having experienced and compared to many other lenses, I still think that the 17-55 is one of the nicest lens around! In terms of sharpness (Even contrast), it totally killed my 24-70 and 24-105. Poor Built quality? Who cares!? ;p
Last edited:
You should look at the focal range you need to cover, that will tell you what lenses to look at. 18-200 sounds like it would fit the required focal range more than say the 17-55.
15-85...you wanna shoot outdoor sports which happens usually when in good light and weather like beach volleyball...so the f2.8 isn't gonna be much of a difference. landscape and group shots...the 15 plus IS wld be damn useful at not so good light. and besides with the 7D, u can buy it as a kit 7D + 15-85...so that means u get the lens for a much better price. =) i so envy your 7D!!
You are right. Thats the only lens I never tested.
At that time, I went for the 17-40L which was much cheaper. Furthermore, someone told me that lens not so sharp but I never got around to verify that! haha
At that time, I went for the 17-40L which was much cheaper. Furthermore, someone told me that lens not so sharp but I never got around to verify that! haha
Yes, Canon's ultra-wides do not have great reputation for sharpness, especially in the past. But I tested the 16-35 II against the 17-55 at Cathay once and the 16-35 II was sharper. So I bought the 16-35 II instead as I was going into FF.
The problem with 3rd party lenses is in the event your cam and lens are not calibrated to work well together.
Canon will NOT verify your cam body focusing with your 3rd party lens.
Neither will 3rd party lens manufacturer check your Canon cam.
Exaggerated? Nope. I have seen it.
Canon will NOT verify your cam body focusing with your 3rd party lens.
Neither will 3rd party lens manufacturer check your Canon cam.
Exaggerated? Nope. I have seen it.
ok that's very dangerous. especially if one intends to buy a new body. thanks for the warning.
Shen siung
Senior Member
If I needed a 50mm f1.4 prime, I'd get the SigmaCanon's one has AF issues ranging from minor to severe.
Yes I agree with your POV...
Last edited:
Actually there are other issues with third party lenses and these are well discussed in other threads.
A third party lens may not AF with a newer body and may need to be refurbished by the manufacturer. BUT, if you can find a very good lens that works with your camera, why not? You can get lucky.
A third party lens may not AF with a newer body and may need to be refurbished by the manufacturer. BUT, if you can find a very good lens that works with your camera, why not? You can get lucky.
- Status
Similar threads
