Which is the best walkaround L Lens?
- Thread starter mrericlee
- Start date
- Status
What I am summarizing is (of course not everyone is going to agree)
--> IS at f/4 more walkable than f/2.8
--> extra reach is important (to 105mm)
--> wider angle than 24mm is important for cropped sensors
Looks like 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM fits the bill better (except for reach).
It's also interesting to see the 24-105mm beating the 24-70mm almost by 2 to 1 by now. Looks like f/2.8 is not all the most important.... IS.. is quite a big factor.
--> IS at f/4 more walkable than f/2.8
--> extra reach is important (to 105mm)
--> wider angle than 24mm is important for cropped sensors
Looks like 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM fits the bill better (except for reach).
It's also interesting to see the 24-105mm beating the 24-70mm almost by 2 to 1 by now. Looks like f/2.8 is not all the most important.... IS.. is quite a big factor.
Last edited:
I have been using the 24-105 on my 40D with satisfying results. I need the longer reach than my 17-50 Tammy can give. My main reason for saying this is that I like to take portraits with quite tight cropping around the face.
However, the 17-85IS is a very good walkabout focal length and I would not waste it if I find the IQ satisfactory. For the Grand Canyon get the 10-22 and the 17-85. The 10-22 will make up for the 17-85's wide angle shortcomings. Think this makes much more sense than the 24-105 for such a trip.
My feeling is that the 17-85 is unfairly panned by people. It does give very decent results in the right hands...
However, the 17-85IS is a very good walkabout focal length and I would not waste it if I find the IQ satisfactory. For the Grand Canyon get the 10-22 and the 17-85. The 10-22 will make up for the 17-85's wide angle shortcomings. Think this makes much more sense than the 24-105 for such a trip.
My feeling is that the 17-85 is unfairly panned by people. It does give very decent results in the right hands...
Last edited:
solasido
Senior Member
Yep, 10-22 is a fantastic lense. I like the produced color. On top of landscape, it is very suitable for room interior photo taking. Highly recommended to bring if you are going to any place where you are likely to shoot landscape. Fish eye lense is also good for landscape shooting.
Aiyah... 17mm on an APSC body isn't really that wide lah. Get a 10-22 lah if you really want wide. :sweatsm: There you have it, another alternative lens to sow confusion in your head.
But seriously, if you've narrowed down your choice to 2 lenses and as per subject as well, I'm kind of at a loss as to why other lenses have to come into the picture. It's kind of like a hard selling tactic being practiced by some shops that can put to test your will power. :sweat: Seller: "No lah brother... you should try this.. this one is better that that" :mad2:
Oh btw, I voted for 24-105mm.
:Later,
But seriously, if you've narrowed down your choice to 2 lenses and as per subject as well, I'm kind of at a loss as to why other lenses have to come into the picture. It's kind of like a hard selling tactic being practiced by some shops that can put to test your will power. :sweat: Seller: "No lah brother... you should try this.. this one is better that that" :mad2:
Oh btw, I voted for 24-105mm.
:Later,
Last edited:
engrmariano
Senior Member
28-300L IS USM :thumbsup:
Hahaha... so is the goal just to get as wide as possible? I think I will go for 17-55mm... it's f/2.8 and with IS. Both features important to me.
Why no one recommend bird's eye?
nottipiglet
New Member
EF-S is one reason for the 17-55 being a non-L. L lens built is really a whole lot better. Besides optics, the other important thing is that L lenses are environmentally sealed.
If you are one of those who walkaround a lot on holidays, or you are a pro who does a lot of outdoors, then an L is necessary. If you carry a non-L and say go through a sandy desert wind, then there is a good chance that quite a lot of dust would have entered the lens. Then if you are a pro, you cannot have the lens sitting at the service hub too often because you rely on it for a living.
Canon build L lenses to be L lenses, and non-Ls are build differently. They did not forget to put a red ring around it. If they did, they would be in trouble with a lot of users.
Personally, I don't need the L built, and I plan to get the 17-55... but I can appreciate people who do need an L.
flipfreak
Senior Member
also to add on, the 17-55 is a crop sensor lens. it is basically the 24-70 lens for a crop body. if they were to make it into a EF lens, it would either be very ex or very huge. just look at the nikon. their 17-55 is also a DX lens. there must be some real reason why it is not a EF or FX lens.
solasido
Senior Member
Yep, L lense glass is made from different material (fluorite) than normal lense. Besides optics quality, it is the build that I like because personally, when I own something, I want it a good quality one that lasts long.
You take the fish eye, go up to the highest floor and shoot. That is bird eye lens.
nottipiglet
New Member
I read that the 17-55 has the same UD glass as some L lenses. That's why it is optically superb... and costs a bomb for a non-L. But the build quality is not even close to an L. I have the EF 70-200mm L IS... and I have seen the 17-55 up close. They are build very differently.
yehosaphat
Senior Member
Then it becomes a fly-about lens!
You guys are went OT. I asked for a poll on the 2 L lens and you guys give me long and short about buying 17-55mm instead. What is the matter with you all?
Now I end up with a non-L lens as my top choice and will be getting it soon. It's all you guys fault that I think I made the right choice on buying the 17-55mm.
Now I end up with a non-L lens as my top choice and will be getting it soon. It's all you guys fault that I think I made the right choice on buying the 17-55mm.
- Status