Canon 17-55 f2.8 or Canon 10-22 f3.5-4.5 + 24-70 f2.8?

[sh1ng0]

but according to photozone.de, 24-70 MTF chart is lower than 17-55 in any available scenario, for example @24mm, 24-70 only scores 1841 whereas 17-55 2074 and so on.
In addition to that 17-55 has image stabilizer which really helps during low shutter speed situation. Another reason to get 17-55 is because the lens weigh much lighter and considerably much cheaper as compared.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/184-canon-ef-24-70mm-f28-usm-l-test-report--review?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/178-canon-ef-s-17-55mm-f28-usm-is-test-report--review?start=1

I would go for 10-22 (for taking interior and panorama) while 17-55 will always be my all-around lens. then of course the next logical step is to buy 50mm f1.2 and 70-200 f2.8 mkII to complete your lens collections.

 

[postal]

Hey man... I also got similar problem when i started photography... anyway, I started my lens collection with Sigma 10-20 mm and Canon 50mm f1.8. Using this combination, I use the UWA for landscape, buildings and interior when I go travelling and the 50mm for portrait or food photography. Then I realize that I need a mid zoom for group portraits. Using UWA for group portrait is totally horrible (face got distortion... all become super tall...) and 50mm is way too tight even for 2 people portrait. Hence I get a Tamron 28-75mm... However I still find 28mm too tight as at times I need to take photos of a small group of people. Thus I start to ponder whether to sell away all my lens and just get a 17-55 for all purpose. But then I still cannot bear to let go my UWA as it is an amazing lens for travelling and the recent NDP fireworks. In the end I sold my 28-75mm and get a 24-105mm... Just bought this lens recently so I cannot really comment much about the combination with UWA...

In short... it depends on ya whether u need the UWA as it can really give a very different perceptive. It was my walkabout lens before I get my 24-105mm... take note that if I am not wrong all UWA will give distortion at the side which may or may not be to your liking. If you don't like the distortion then just stick to 17-55 mm. Got time I will post some UWA shots... :-D

 

[postal]

One of the shots at 10mm... didn't crop it to let ya see the distortions... (bottom left). :-D

 

[sh1ng0]

One of the shots at 10mm... didn't crop it to let ya see the distortions... (bottom left). :-D

that is the reason why most people go for canon 10-22 instead. As compared to ALL the uwa lens out there this lens has the least amount of distortion and can be easily corrected, in fact it will be auto corrected in the latest version of photoshop.

 

[LeXjj]

Bro is 17-55 the sharpest lens for crop body? I'm using 18-200 but my picture intends to be blur on 18mm if I were to take group photo. It is worst on F5.6 and below. Sorry to run out of thread. Please advice me. Thank you in advance.

using 18mm(kit lens I or II setup) for any group photos will give u blur at f3.5
Group Photos = lots of Details = High DOF = Higher value of aperture

that explains y your group photos is blurred at 18mm.

Possible fault:
1. Av mode, u have the camera set it to the widest aperture the lens can give u f3.5
2. P mode / Auto mode

Possible Solution
1. Always set around f5.6 ~f8 depends on the DOF u wanna get for a group photo.
2. IF u really wants to shoot at low aperture, pop in a external flash unit

(Y) happy shooting! 18-200mm is a good walk-around lens

 

[postal]

that is the reason why most people go for canon 10-22 instead. As compared to ALL the uwa lens out there this lens has the least amount of distortion and can be easily corrected, in fact it will be auto corrected in the latest version of photoshop.

Latest version meaning CS5? the current wan pretty complicated to adjust...

 

[freelancer08]

using 18mm(kit lens I or II setup) for any group photos will give u blur at f3.5
Group Photos = lots of Details = High DOF = Higher value of aperture

that explains y your group photos is blurred at 18mm.

Possible fault:
1. Av mode, u have the camera set it to the widest aperture the lens can give u f3.5
2. P mode / Auto mode

Possible Solution
1. Always set around f5.6 ~f8 depends on the DOF u wanna get for a group photo.
2. IF u really wants to shoot at low aperture, pop in a external flash unit

(Y) happy shooting! 18-200mm is a good walk-around lens

Try pushing your iso up or using a flash. Take note of your shutter speed, should be faster than 1/2xfocal length for crop body - my cousin's rule. (ex. 18mm = shutter speed = 1/36+). Even using lenses with IS, sometimes you can't prevent your hands to shake that the gyro can't handle anymore, especially if shutter speed is too slow.

Or you can use a flash + manual settings to freeze the action(very low exposure level, primary source of light is the flash - bounced/direct or diffused doesn't matter), works for me all the time and gives me very good IQ. Guess, you should start your own thread so people can concentrate on your problem.

Regarding my topic, using Tamron 28-75. Thinking of changing to 17-55 for ease of use =), but not yet there. I still need to practice and will make myself more familiar with what I have and what I really shoot. I just bring my 18-55 with me in case no more land to zoom out by feet.

Happy shooting!

 

[freelancer08]

Bro is 17-55 the sharpest lens for crop body? I'm using 18-200 but my picture intends to be blur on 18mm if I were to take group photo. It is worst on F5.6 and below. Sorry to run out of thread. Please advice me. Thank you in advance.

Sorry, was referring to this quote.

 

[postal]

Just curious... y not just get Tamron 17-50? It is much cheaper and the quality of the images is pretty good... BTW, one of the guys here told me not to get 17-40 L as it is more meant for FF so he recommend me to get the Tamron instead...

 

[sh1ng0]

Latest version meaning CS5? the current wan pretty complicated to adjust...

yes, adobe cs5 will automatically detect canon or nikon lens but not third party lens.

Just curious... y not just get Tamron 17-50? It is much cheaper and the quality of the images is pretty good... BTW, one of the guys here told me not to get 17-40 L as it is more meant for FF so he recommend me to get the Tamron instead...

rather than tamron 17-50, sigma 17-50 (the latest one with OS (image stabilizer)) provide sharper image, the only downside is softer on the corners as compared to canon, however the center sharpness is even sharper than canon. At the moment the quality and price ranked is:

1. Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS +3 stops (most exp)
2. Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS +4 stops (somwhere in the middle)
3. Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC +4 stops (cheapest)

And yes, stabilizer is important thats why I am comparing all the available lenses in that category.

 

[sh1ng0]

And also I forgot to mention that canon lens will ultimately be the one that held the highest resale value in the end if you decided to replace it.

 

[freelancer08]

Hey man... I also got similar problem when i started photography... anyway, I started my lens collection with Sigma 10-20 mm and Canon 50mm f1.8. Using this combination, I use the UWA for landscape, buildings and interior when I go travelling and the 50mm for portrait or food photography. Then I realize that I need a mid zoom for group portraits. Using UWA for group portrait is totally horrible (face got distortion... all become super tall...) and 50mm is way too tight even for 2 people portrait. Hence I get a Tamron 28-75mm... However I still find 28mm too tight as at times I need to take photos of a small group of people. Thus I start to ponder whether to sell away all my lens and just get a 17-55 for all purpose. But then I still cannot bear to let go my UWA as it is an amazing lens for travelling and the recent NDP fireworks. In the end I sold my 28-75mm and get a 24-105mm... Just bought this lens recently so I cannot really comment much about the combination with UWA...

In short... it depends on ya whether u need the UWA as it can really give a very different perceptive. It was my walkabout lens before I get my 24-105mm... take note that if I am not wrong all UWA will give distortion at the side which may or may not be to your liking. If you don't like the distortion then just stick to 17-55 mm. Got time I will post some UWA shots... :-D

Thanks bro, we have almost the same setup. And also finds that 28 is quite long for group pics, but usually I can compensate by just zooming out using my feet. 24-105 has F/4 only, I guess it will not work with my setup usually takes portraits aperture of F/4 below.

But as of now, I'll work with what I have and not jump to some very expensive lenses and in the end will realize that It's not that much difference.

18-55mm = For wide end, used for group pics if no land to zoom out by feet and long exposure night shots handheld for IS, and I usually shoot apertures higher than F5.6 on the wide end

28-75mm = For portrait shots with very shallow depth of field, group pics as long as there are lands to zoom out by feet and what I like on this lens is good Macro effect, fine, good details and attractive bokeh =)


I don't mind changing it to Tamron 17-50mm or Canon 17-55 though if offered to me for an attractive price or trade-in =)

And in the future, might get an UWA. Trying not to be a gear addict and still practicing and I am still considered as a newbie and will only buy things if I really do need it. =)

 

[postal]

Hehe... my setup at the moment is UWA for landscape, interior etc shots... the 24-105mm as a walkabout lens and 50mm for portraits.. same thinking as ya before... bought 28-75 for the purpose of portraits shots as well but the bokeh effect not as shiok as a prime lens... wahaha! So I sold it and get the current L lens.... Ouch!

BTW, did ya get the 28-75 just recently? Cause I just sold to a guy in bukit batok using a 550D... dunno whether u are the same person or not... wahaha!

 

[freelancer08]

Definitely not me bro, this was handed down to me by my cousin. I used to have a prime 50mm 1.8 but sold it, hehehe don't have good eyes of what is a good bokeh and what's not - I consider this as an advantage of being a noob with no experience on trying some lenses, just happy with what the new toy can do and how better it is compared to a point-and-shoot cam. Over-all just need to PP to fix contrast and better color, then happy with tammy.

 

[postal]

Wahaha! I also pretty new also... Just about 1 year into DSLR... still got tons of stuff to learn sia... at the moment have to learn how to correct my ultra wide angle distortion first... haha! :-D

 

[dingzyangz]

I think it's good to have a 24-70. I used to use it quite often and even now it's still with me becos it still work as a very amazing backup lens.

u can consider sigma 12-24. tat's gonna future proof u. it's the widest available for a FF.

know ur capabilities of ur lens and u wont have to worry much abt distortion, i rarely correct my landscapes using 12mm on FF.

from my perspective
10-22 and 17-55 --> it's something u will sell when u switch to FF. and yes, i told myself i don't see why i need FF... but in the end, also went FF.
anyway I dont really like the range of 17-55. haha.

spend wisely.

hope it helps.

 

[magicianhisoka]

um...if you dont like the range of the 17-55mm on a crop...wouldnt the 24-70 on a FF give the same problem?

 

[dingzyangz]

tat's y it is now a backup. I wont use it unless I have no choice.

um...if you dont like the range of the 17-55mm on a crop...wouldnt the 24-70 on a FF give the same problem?

 

[enzeru21]

tat's y it is now a backup. I wont use it unless I have no choice.

dont use then sell lor.. then can save money and succumb to the BBB virus~!!! hahah..

 

[dingzyangz]

I mainly use primes... and God knows when will one of the item go bonkers. so ya... leaving it as a backup. :bsmilie:

I do use it sometimes for travelling depending on situations...

dont use then sell lor.. then can save money and succumb to the BBB virus~!!! hahah..