Yet Another LENS ADVICE Thread ... (Sort of)

[ChrisBrightwell]

Well, not really. 🙂 I've basically made up my mind. I just need to run it by the folks around here who know WTF they're doing. 😎

Currently, I have:
- Canon EOS 350D (Digital Rebel XT)
- 58mm Circular Polarizer (Tiffen)
- Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

I have a budget of ~$1,000 to buy a lens or two. I do a lot of indoor shots, so I want something really wide, but I'd like to be able to take shots of my sister-in-law's soccer games or do a little bit of nature photography in my back yard.

I've settled on these:
- Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM ($516 @ Amazon.com)
- Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM ($588 @ Amazon.com)
- A pair of 67mm Circular Polarizers

I'm not crazy about the f/4L limitation on the pair, but I've made f/3.5 work pretty well and I don't foresee many of my telephoto shots being in the dark. Worst case, I'll be under good stadium/field lighting (which has done fine for me in the past).

I think that the IS will help with possible low-light problems on the 17-85mm lens, since most of my low-light shots are of interiors, landscapes, or other still life. I either hand-hold those or grab a tripod/gorillapod. Easy.

My question, then, is this: Is there a better pair of lenses that cover the same (or close to the same) focal lengths for the same money? Alternatively, is there a better ultrawide (at least 20mm) general-purpose lens for $500?

I'd rather not use third-party lenses (call me paranoid) and I'm willing to sell either lens and save money for one of its faster counterparts (16-35mm f/2.8L and the 70-200 f/4L IS, f/2.8, or f/2.8 IS) if I need to. I just don't think that I need to. Not yet, anyway. 🙂

Any discussion or insight is hugely appreciated. I've learned so much already just sitting quietly and listening to the chatter that goes on around here.

Thanks.

 

[cookie1105]

The 70-200mm f/4 L is a great lens, you can't go wrong with it. Unless you are shooting at night games the f/4 won't bother you.

I wouldn't go with the ef-s 17-85mm, because you are doubling up on focal lengths and if you ever plan on going full-frame it is not compatible.

I would go with the 70-200mm f/4 L and the 17-40 f/4 L. The IS on the 17-85 is not going to help you at all if you are on a tripod and personally if I'm shooting low-light handheld then I use the 50mm.

 

[Abstract]

I'd rather not use third-party lenses (call me paranoid)....

When I started reading your post, I though, "Why doesn't he get a Tokina or Sigma ultrawide angle?", but now I guess it doesn't matter. A 3rd party lens would fill your needs better, though, and you would end up with sharper indoor photos than you'd get from a slower Canon lens, and have several hundred dollars in your wallet because of the money you saved by buying a Sigma 17-50 mm f2.8 instead. To me, that sounds smart.

And besides, 17 or 18 mm isn't "wideangle" on a 350D. It's not nearly wide enough. You can probably see this just by using your 18-55 mm kit lens at 18 mm.

Is there a better pair of lenses that cover the same (or close to the same) focal lengths for the same money?

I wouldn't get the 17-85 mm either. I'd just go for the 17-40 mm f/4 L like Cookie suggested if you really want to get Canon. You don't really need to cover the entire range of focal lengths, which is why I'll also recommend the 17-40 f/4.

Can't you just get a Canon 17-55 mm f2.8 and try to find a used Canon 70-200 f/4? Or maybe a used set of both (if you can find them used).

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

The 70-200mm f/4 L is a great lens, you can't go wrong with it. Unless you are shooting at night games the f/4 won't bother you.

Night games should be fairly uncommon. Even then, I think I can make it work. Maybe.

I wouldn't go with the ef-s 17-85mm, because you are doubling up on focal lengths and if you ever plan on going full-frame it is not compatible.

At the same time ... if I go full-frame, it helps boost the resale of my 350D. 😎

I would go with the 70-200mm f/4 L and the 17-40 f/4 L. [...]

I went back and forth over the 17-40 f/4L and the 17-85 mentioned in the OP. The 17-40 is just too much for my budget right now. 🙁

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

And besides, 17 or 18 mm isn't "wideangle" on a 350D. It's not nearly wide enough. You can probably see this just by using your 18-55 mm kit lens at 18 mm.

Oh, I can. There have been times when I openly cursed the 18mm for not being wide enough.

I wouldn't get the 17-85 mm either. I'd just go for the 17-40 mm f/4 L like Cookie suggested if you really want to get Canon.

So that's two strikes against the 17-85 and two votes for the 17-40. Interesting.

You don't really need to cover the entire range of focal lengths, which is why I'll also recommend the 17-40 f/4.

Now this is interesting, as well. I've read in some places that you want a little bit over overlap and I've read in others that you should worry less about covering gaps.

Photographers are a funny crowd. 😉

Can't you just get a Canon 17-55 mm f2.8 and try to find a used Canon 70-200 f/4? Or maybe a used set of both (if you can find them used).

I wouldn't even know where to begin looking for reliable used lenses.

 

[Abstract]

Try B&H or keh.com or something for used lenses.


And anyone who tells you that you need to cover the entire focal length is wrong. You'll never hear anyone ask for a 50-70 mm lens just because there are so many people with a 18-50, 18-55, 17-55 mm coupled with a 70-200, 70-300, or 75-300 mm lenses on the market. If you need to shoot in that range, just lean backwards or forwards, and that's essentially the difference. I could easily live with just a 12-24 mm (or similar), 50 mm f/1.8, and a 70-200 mm f/2.8 or f/4.