Choice of 17-55 f2.8 IS or 17-40 f4L for 40D

[Pinoy]

I've used a 28-135 IS before and personally think that it's wide enough for most of my needs. In rare times where it's not, then one can always take a couple of steps -- or so -- backwards to make up for the range.

On hindsight, I'd probably need 2 lenses to cover for 90%+ of my needs. Due to budget constraint, I am now considering the following after spending lots of time reading posts and reviews: :sweat:

1. Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) @ $612 @ OP. I'd be using this mostly on indoor shots or evening BBQ parties etc.

2. Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM @ $1060 @ CP. For outdoor shots.

What do you guys think of the above combo?

Guess the most important concern for me is how to ensure that the copy I'm getting is a good copy, especially for the Tamron.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions/feedbacks/replies on my query.

:Later,

 

[Teegongkia]

I've used a 28-135 IS before and personally think that it's wide enough for most of my needs. In rare times where it's not, then one can always take a couple of steps -- or so -- backwards to make up for the range.

On hindsight, I'd probably need 2 lenses to cover for 90%+ of my needs. Due to budget constraint, I am now considering the following after spending lots of time reading posts and reviews: :sweat:

1. Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) @ $612 @ OP. I'd be using this mostly on indoor shots or evening BBQ parties etc.

2. Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM @ $1060 @ CP. For outdoor shots.

What do you guys think of the above combo?

Guess the most important concern for me is how to ensure that the copy I'm getting is a good copy, especially for the Tamron.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions/feedbacks/replies on my query.

:Later,

If you are using a 1.6 camera...which is to say EF 70-200mm will actually be EF 112-320mm........

professionals out there, pls correct me if i am wrong.

 

[Pinoy]

I'm using 40D. The 28-135 was my friend's and was used on 300D.

:Later,

 

[askpaul]

The reason for the IS on EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM:

it is a lens that is also highly suitable for landscape with is "fish-eye" or wide angle capablilities.
At landscape, we usually move the aperture up to at least f/9.
At least point of time, slow shutter speed required such as 1/3 or slower.
Hence the IS compensate for any handshake at the slow shuttle.

 

[silverarrow]

Had been reading up some reviews on this spectacular lense, that it suffers from dusts getting in between the internal lenses, anyone had this problem, will it affect quality of the pics?

What are the recommended filters to match this lense, as i'm buying mine next week. Lense hood also had to be purchase seperately....

Thanks

 

[Pinoy]

Put an end to all my "worries". Got myself the 17-55mm f2.8 IS.

:Later,

 

[Teegongkia]

cool.....u can sell 17-55 to me later if u feel that 17-40L suit u better........:sweatsm:

 

[jasperng]

welcome to the 17-55 IS family

Put an end to all my "worries". Got myself the 17-55mm f2.8 IS.

:Later,

 

[jeryltan]

1 stop difference, gives you twice as fast shutter speed fyi.. and that is a lot of difference..

In terms of light difference, the EF-S 17-55 and the 17-40L are only a stop apart. This is the only thing that is for sure - not 4 stops. When it come to freezing motion, IS will not help (I think you already know this); only that one stop advantage (and perhaps using a Speedlite on 2nd curtain sync - this only helps in some situations) will come in handy in freezing motion.

The remaining three stops are user-dependent, as Frijj already mentioned. In the hands of a user with poor technique, IS can even be rendered useless.

 

[calebk]

If you are using a 1.6 camera...which is to say EF 70-200mm will actually be EF 112-320mm........

professionals out there, pls correct me if i am wrong.

The idea is there, but the words used are misleading.

1.6x is a number used to give you an idea of what the crop factor looks like. Hence, mounting a 70-200mm will give you a field of view of a 112-320mm lens on FF, but focal length is still 70-200.

 

[zul277]

Nice lens, not dissapointed at all with the image quality and dim light shooting...
I am jealous now as you have both the 40D and the 17-55..

 

[CreaXion]

The idea is there, but the words used are misleading.

1.6x is a number used to give you an idea of what the crop factor looks like. Hence, mounting a 70-200mm will give you a field of view of a 112-320mm lens on FF, but focal length is still 70-200.

???? Should there be a "but" in front of the words, "on FF".

 

[calebk]

The idea is there, but the words used are misleading.

1.6x is a number used to give you an idea of what the crop factor looks like. Hence, mounting a 70-200mm will give you a field of view of a 112-320mm lens on FF, but focal length is still 70-200.

[/B][/COLOR]

???? Should there be a "but" in front of the words, "on FF".

Whatever rocks your boat.

How bout this for a rephrase:

1.6x is a number used to give you an idea of what the crop factor looks like. Hence, mounting a 70-200mm on an APS-C camera will give you a field of view similar to a 112-320mm lens mounted on a FF camera.

 

[CreaXion]

Whatever rocks your boat.

How bout this for a rephrase:

1.6x is a number used to give you an idea of what the crop factor looks like. Hence, mounting a 70-200mm on an APS-C camera will give you a field of view similar to a 112-320mm lens mounted on a FF camera.

This was what I know according to my limited knowledge. The other sentence was confusing cause he said 112 - 320 on full frame.