bullseyez
New Member
whc i think most ppl here tell me to get the 17-55
comparing EF17-40mm f/4L and EF 17-55mm f/2.8
- Thread starter bullseyez
- Start date
- Status
whc i think most ppl here tell me to get the 17-55
Hi,
Anyway, there are some shops that allow you to test the lens, so bring your DSLR and test both lens. Took some shots from both lens, go home and see which one is better from your computer screen before you decide.
Good luck, happy shopping and have a nice day.
For your 1000D, IMHO, the answer is simple... get the 17-55mm f2.8. You need all the light you can get to shoot in low light without tripod and f2.8 lens does help. If you want to shoot landscape wider than 17mm, get the EFS 10-22mm... it's a very good ultra-wide angle.
Anyway, there are some shops that allow you to test the lens, so bring your DSLR and test both lens. Took some shots from both lens, go home and see which one is better from your computer screen before you decide.
Good luck, happy shopping and have a nice day.
AbsolutKev
New Member
agreed, if u wanna save money. my fren jus got the 17-50 tammy n he is lovin it. but the is will help u go 3 stops lower. which is a great help to 1000D cos it can help u reduce the iso thus reducing noise for nite shot. iq wise 17-55 will be better cos it uses ud lens. usm also helps u to focus faster thus not missin the moment if u r catchin a fast movin object.
but remember to off your is when u take usin tripod.
A lot of ppl keep mention using IS & f2.8,can take photo at low light situation,I just wanna ask,how many of them can take photo at that situation n de photo won't blur?for wat I know,f2.8 is not enough 4 group photo.in low light situation,how u make sure ur object won't move?
There are of course 2 situations...
1) When neither f/2.8 and f/4.0 are enough for a good shot. Don't need to talk more.
2) When f/4.0 is not enough, but f/2.8 is just right. Going from f/4.0 to f/2.8 is one full stop of light, allowing you to half the shutter time that can easily help you save a shot in a moderately lit restaurant. f/4.0 1/10 handheld? Probably not. f/2.8 1/20 IS? Another story. At these kinda shutter speeds, as long as your subjects sit reasonably still, you're going to be able to land a good shot as long as you have a good shooting technique and IS will only enhance that.
We're of course not talking about a 1 second shutter speed vs a 2 second shutter speed where neither IS nor f/2.8 is going to save your shots which is what (1) was all about.
in low light and when u take group photos...IS can only save you a bit. in the end people aren't statues and they won't be still enough for you to take a photo of them without some weird ghosting around them. there will be abit of ghosting (outlining of subject's edges) if you notice...group photos need a good flash and good lighting.
catsr03
Member
I'm a 17-40 user. So far, my low light handheld shooting performance when shooting at F/4 is acceptable. Perhaps it's due to the better noise control of the 7D as High ISO? So in this case, perhaps it's not the lens but a combination of all factors?
you cant introduce so much variable otherwise the comparision is not meaningful.
For your case, using the same body (7D) with the same ISO setting (say 1600), you can get a keeper at 1/20 f4 at 17mm with 17-40mm. However you can get 1/10 f2.8 at 17mm with the 17-55mm, and we are not even talking about IS yet..
explorer2008
New Member
If shooting moving objects more often, like children, better choose EF-S 18-55 2.8 one.
Otherwise just go with the EF 17-40.
Both are nice for APS-C.
Otherwise just go with the EF 17-40.
Both are nice for APS-C.
Actually, remember that 7D is a cropper. The ideal shutter speed for handholding is 1/(focal length x crop factor). So 1/20 at 17mm with the 17-40 (which has no IS) won't guarantee that your shot won't be blur. 1.6 x 17 is 27.2. Which means the ideal shutter speed will be 1/30, or 1/25 if your hands don't shake so bad (mine do). But I do agree, some people (actually, many people) have steady hands and can get away with 1/20. I know I won't :bsmilie:
commonjunks
Senior Member
Would you mind to elaborate about 18-55 logic? I am planning to buy 17-55 lens for my 7D and i will use this lens for my young son photography.
geblex
Member
IMHO
I vote for 17-55mm, I had this dilemma also that time. Both are very good lense, I tried both before ended buying 17-55mm. My Concern is the IS and f2.8 . I also using cropped body on my 450D and no regret because the IQ is superb and fast lense! Well if your shooting style need fast lense and prefer not using flash, you can choose this lense. I feel this lense help me a lot since the ISO range in my 450D not as flexible as xxD and xD series to get fast shutter speed.
Now is depend on your needs
I vote for 17-55mm, I had this dilemma also that time. Both are very good lense, I tried both before ended buying 17-55mm. My Concern is the IS and f2.8 . I also using cropped body on my 450D and no regret because the IQ is superb and fast lense! Well if your shooting style need fast lense and prefer not using flash, you can choose this lense. I feel this lense help me a lot since the ISO range in my 450D not as flexible as xxD and xD series to get fast shutter speed.
Now is depend on your needs
bullseyez
New Member
IMHO
I vote for 17-55mm, I had this dilemma also that time. Both are very good lense, I tried both before ended buying 17-55mm. My Concern is the IS and f2.8 . I also using cropped body on my 450D and no regret because the IQ is superb and fast lense! Well if your shooting style need fast lense and prefer not using flash, you can choose this lense. I feel this lense help me a lot since the ISO range in my 450D not as flexible as xxD and xD series to get fast shutter speed.
Now is depend on your needs
we had a same shooting style. haha.
Based on my own experience and what I have put it through, the 17-55 is a pretty tough lens even though it's not an L.
- Status
Similar threads
