Photography Shoutbox

[Nismode]

finchy, have you ever considered 17-55mm IS f/2.8?

Ooooor the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8?

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/2...ii-ld-aspherical-if-canon-test-report--review

 

[turbocayenne]

hmmm yes, i'm considering the tamron 17-50 as well, but if you like the IS go with Canon.

 

[finch13]

Not really, it's nearly 2x the price. It is somewhat superior to the 17-40 in many aspects, but I don't have money for it and if I need something for low light, I'll just slap on the nifty fifty.

 

[Nismode]

hmmm yes, i'm considering the tamron 17-50 as well, but if you like the IS go with Canon.

Tamron is $400.... Canon is almost 2x that...just for IS and an extra 5mm on the top end?
A little rich (I'm not rich...lol) if you ask me.

 

[Nismode]

Not really, it's nearly 2x the price. It is somewhat superior to the 17-40 in many aspects, but I don't have money for it and if I need something for low light, I'll just slap on the nifty fifty.

My exact sentiments. But sometimes the 50 is too close (esp on our crop bodies).

 

[finch13]

Right, the whole purpose of picking out the 17-40 was for the not-to-wide and not too close performance of it. Plus the color through it is amazing, along with no vignetting at 17/4, unlike the 17-55 at 17/2.8.

So that's kinda my plan...

17-40 f/4L
50 f/1.8 MkII
70-200 f/4L (or used f/2.8 non-IS or f/4 IS)

Pretty much covered from 17-200, don't think I'll miss much from 50-70, most of my shots are wide, tele, or macro. Not really in between, unless the correct composition calls for it.

 

[Nismode]

Right, the whole purpose of picking out the 17-40 was for the not-to-wide and not too close performance of it. Plus the color through it is amazing, along with no vignetting at 17/4, unlike the 17-55 at 17/2.8.

So that's kinda my plan...

17-40 f/4L
50 f/1.8 MkII
70-200 f/4L (or used f/2.8 non-IS or f/4 IS)

Pretty much covered from 17-200, don't think I'll miss much from 50-70, most of my shots are wide, tele, or macro. Not really in between, unless the correct composition calls for it.

50mm mk II? What's the difference?

My plan would be something like:

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (or Canon 10-22mm f/3.5)
28-135mm IS f/3.5*
50mm f/1.8*
Canon 100-400mm

Or I'd get the 17-50 f/2.8 and worry about the long end for later.

 

[finch13]

The 50 1.8 MkII is the Canon 50 from 91-on, the Mk I had a metal mount, but they are nearly identical.

 

[hiddengamer7]

Right now, I've got up to 70mm covered in AF, but I have nothing on the long end.

Canon 10-22
Canon 24-70
Nifty Fifty

MF's baby!
Nikon 55mm F/3.5 macro
Rokkor 55mm F/1.9
Rokkor 24mm F/2.8
Zenitar 135mm F/3.5
Zuiko 50mm F/1.8

 

[finch13]

Hahah how many adpaters do you have Will?

I should mention I don't really want any EF-S lenses because I plan on get a 35mm Canon Elan 7ne in the future months.