At 12:12 PM -0500 1/15/07, Bob wrote:
David Mitchell wrote:
I'm caught between these two lenses: EF-S 17-55 f2.8, and the EF 24-70 f2.8L.
This is for walk around shooting: travel photos, rock climbing photos
etc. The reviews I've read point to both lenses being fantastic.
I'm shooting on a 20D btw.
My thoughts are:
For the 17-55:
Smaller, lighter, cheaper, wider, IS
For the 24-70:
Best lens hood ever, longer, still a usable wide, especially if I pair
it with 10-22
So I'm interested in what the list thinks. For a feel of the kind of
photos I have been taking recently, check out
http://www.flickr.com/photos/beaumonde
Cheers
David
With the current camera technology increases, the age of the 20D,
and more full frame digicams maybe in the near future I would go
with the 24-70 . Pairing with the 10-22 would give you great
flexibility.
Now, the 10-22 is an S lens which limits the bodies it can be used
on and at $700 +/- that could be a factor. I don't know what the
resale value would be if you get a full framer and want to sell it.
Another lens that I might add to the conversation is the EF 24-105
f/4 L IS. Cost is similar to the 24-70 but while it is f/4. it goes
out to 105mm and has IS.
I have the older 28-70 f/2.8 L and am considering the 24-105 which
is why I mentioned it.
Bob.
I always find this kind of argument weird. I should say that I have
(and regularly use) both 1.6 factor and 'full frame' DSLR's.
Both work. Just as different film formats serve different purposes,
so do the two types of DSLR's. I don't want to give up either. The
larger sensor camera gives me better separation with fast lenses due
to shallow depth of field, allows wider angles of view and - not
necessarily a factor of the format - a much better viewfinder.
The smaller sensor camera does better with telephotos, is faster
shooting and lighter, both in body and with equivalent field-of-view
lenses.
Why, when you consider what's available, would you go for a rather
large, heavy and expensive lens of limited range when a smaller,
lighter, cheaper lens with IS is available for your camera? If the
24mm focal length is wide enough for you and you don't need IS and
you do need 70mm, then OK. If you have to supplement the lens with a
wider one, and you would really like IS, then no. Are you
dissatisfied with the format? Get a larger format camera. The get the
right lenses for it.
The differences in quality between the 17-55 and 24-70 are minimal in
even a theoretical range. In practice, on a print, the differences
are truly insignificant. In fact, in practice even the difference
between the 17-85 and the 24-70 are not that significant. And believe
me, I have and do know top quality lenses, and the shorter Canons
aren't them. But they allow me to get the images I want.
Get lenses that get you the images you want to capture, not the ones
that are for cameras you might want to get at some unknown point in
the future or that are touted as 'the best'. Above all, get lenses
you're willing to carry with you when you see images you want to
capture; don't get lenses or worse, a whole lot of lenses you're
unwilling to schlep around.
--
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
