Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 2, 2006, 7:59 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Quan Tran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 277
Default

Hello All,

First of all, I'd like to thank you for reading this message and would very much appreciate it if you could help me consulting and giving your advice on this dilemma.The puzzle is I am currently owning some equipment and I feel hard to decide and trade off the best lens to purchase this year. My current equipmentis as follows:

1 x body Canon EOS 20D c/w battery grip

1 x Canon lens kit 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

1 x Canon lens 50mm f/1.8 mk II

1 x Canon lens 70-200mm f/4L USM

1 x Tamron lens 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro 1:1

1 x Canon Speedlite 580EX

1 x tripod SliKPro 400DX c/w ballhead SB800

What I need to upgrade this year isONLY one of the following lenses:

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L USM ($1,300)

Canon 17-40mm f/4L USM ($700)

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L USM ($1,350)

So with the current gear could you please advise me which one is the best to trade off.

Thank you very much in advance and looking to hearing your kind reply soon.

Regards,

Quan








Quan Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 3, 2006, 12:39 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

well if I was lucky enough to have the lenses you have and the choice you have to make, I would replace my kit lens with Canon 17-40mm f/4L USM. Ive heard pretty good things about it.
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2006, 1:38 AM   #3
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Tricky one.

Accepting the challenge - I would suggest the 16-35 for you.

16-35 *1.6 = 26-56mm Effective Focal Length.

My reasoning is this...

I don't particularly regard the gap between 35-70mm as problematic, usually you will be able to zoom with your feet. And of course you have the 50mm prime and your existing 18-55, which is actually very sharp and quite a good lens at the 55mm end of the zoom.

The EFL of the 16-35 gives you slightly better wide angle coverage and a relatively fast f2.8 for your "normal" focal length shots of around 45-55mm EFL.

Based on the photographs you have published on this forum I think the extra flexibility of the f2.8 will provide you with extra creative options.


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2006, 2:42 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
JohnReid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 734
Default

I'm with Peripatetic on this one but would like to add the following - in decided between the two Canon WAs, does the increase in price of the 16-35 justify its price difference. If it were me I would buy the 17-40 simply becuase at the wide end, the shallow DOF of the 2.8 would be very similar to the 4 and you don't gain much more speed.
JohnReid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2006, 12:57 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Caboose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 625
Default

Well here is my opinion, looking at the lenses you have the 24-70mm range is where you are most lacking. It would be very tempting to upgrade the kit lens with one of the others from your list, but I think I would go with the 24-70mm f/2.8L and maybe next year trade of the kit lens for the 16-35mm L. All three of the lenses you have to choose from are great lenses.
Caboose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2006, 2:00 PM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quan Tran wrote:
Quote:
What I need to upgrade this year isONLY one of the following lenses:

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L USM ($1,300)

Canon 17-40mm f/4L USM ($700)

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L USM ($1,350)
Why do you need to upgrade?
What is it that you are lacking... and what do you expect to gain from that selection (surely not the f/2.8 )?

IMO one can have a much higher creative control with a super wide like an EFs 10-22 or a 12-24 full-frame :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2006, 8:40 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Default

You could get a Sigma 18-50f2.8 and a super-wide such as Canon's 10-22 or Sigma's 10-20 for not much more than the cheapest of the three lense you mention (and a lot less than the other two).
jacks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2006, 6:36 AM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

jacks wrote:
Quote:
You could get a Sigma 18-50f2.8 and a super-wide...
Make the most sense to me for a 20D (not a full-frame): http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/zoomvprimes

Get rid of the Canon kit lens 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM, and you may also find the 50mm f/1.8 not as useful as before except in rare lighting condition...

-> For the $ get a longer tele such as the EF 100-400L IS which seems to be what you're missing - Don't they have beautiful birds in VN??? :idea:

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:16 AM.