Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 30, 2007, 1:51 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 39
Default

I am thinking of getting the Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

How can I sell my wife on this sale? What is this lens going to do for me (besides Image Stable) that my kit 17-55 that came with my Rebel XTi won't do?

If you could tell me in "Hobby Enthusiast" terms for me... and maybe a little watered down version for the wife!

I have a good Telephoto already, but I am looking to improve my Short range..... I just need to sell the wife on $1,000 price tag.... HELP!
MartyF81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 30, 2007, 2:01 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

In addition to the image stabilization, it also has a constant f/2.8 aperture. At it's shortest focal length, you can use a shutter speed that is almost twice as fast as you can now, so you can better capture action shots without motion blur. At it's longest focal length, you can use a shutter speed that is four times faster thanyou can now.

Do you have a reason to be able to capture indoor/low-light shots that your wife can relate to? Photos of small children in available light, perhaps?

As an asside, IS doesn't really help very much at shorter focal lengths, so you might be just as well served by a Tamron 17-50/2.8 or a Sigma 18-50/2.8, and they cost less.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2007, 4:28 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 107
Default

I agree...indoor/low light situations is really your best selling point. There's just something special about available light photography.
DrChris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2007, 4:59 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
As an asside, IS doesn't really help very much at shorter focal lengths, so you might be just as well served by a Tamron 17-50/2.8 or a Sigma 18-50/2.8, and they cost less.
... that is, unless you are experiencing a problem with motion blur due to camera shake at these focal lengths.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2007, 10:04 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

I keep hearing people say that IS doesn't help much at shorter focal length, and have a question about Canon's in-lens system. Does it only work well with longer focal lengths? One of the reasons I wanted IS was that I occasionally take pictures at shutter speeds slower than I can handhold with any lens, like 1/6 and 1/4 sec with lenses around 24 to 50 mm. Is the Canon in-lens system not as good with that as it is with long lenses, like a 300mm lens? I'm really curious, even though I'm not interested in buying another manufacturer.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2007, 11:53 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Mr_Saginaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 552
Default

DrChris wrote:
Quote:
I agree...indoor/low light situations is really your best selling point. There's just something special about available light photography.
agreed! Available light, babies and shallow depth of field....


Mr_Saginaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2007, 1:53 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
dr_spock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 879
Default

You could tell your wife you don't have to buy a big expensive tripod since it has IS. Although a big heavy tripod might be good for beating off someone trying to mug your 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens.

There is also image quality you can try to sell her on. IQ on the 17-55mm is better than the 18-55mm kit lens. Also it has faster focus and full time manual focus so you won't miss shots of the kids.
dr_spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2007, 3:22 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 162
Default

It's too bad you don't live in NY. I would tell you to save your pennies and walk over to BH, pay cash, take it home and as Stan Laurel once said " our wives will be none the wiser" By the time BH has this lens back in stock you will probably have enough money saved anyway. The only other thing I can suggest is that you promise her something of equal value. After all marriage is all about compromise. Happy New Year.
BEECEE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2008, 3:57 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

mtngal wrote:
Quote:
I keep hearing people say that IS doesn't help much at shorter focal length, and have a question about Canon's in-lens system. Does it only work well with longer focal lengths? One of the reasons I wanted IS was that I occasionally take pictures at shutter speeds slower than I can handhold with any lens, like 1/6 and 1/4 sec with lenses around 24 to 50 mm. Is the Canon in-lens system not as good with that as it is with long lenses, like a 300mm lens? I'm really curious, even though I'm not interested in buying another manufacturer.
It's not that Canon's image stabilization is any less good than anybody else's, or that optical image stabilization isn't as good as sensor shift image stabilization. It's that image stabilization only really helps prevent image blur due to camera shake, and at shorter focal lengths, camera shake isn't much of an issue. The operator is just as likely to shake a camera with a long lens as they are with a short lens, but the image from a short lens won't display the motion blur as much.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2008, 6:45 PM   #10
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

DrChris wrote:
Quote:
I agree...indoor/low light situations is really your best selling point. There's just something special about available light photography.
Here's the thing though. Very often 2.8 just isn't the right tool. It either isn't fast enough or it doesn't allow you enough depth of field. And if you really want shallow DOF, 55mm 2.8 isn't GREAT for that.

Sharpness is probably the biggest gain you'll notice. The 2.8 is a great feature but again - not fast enough for a lot of conditions and not long enough for shallow dof.

What kind of shots are you planning on taking? Is low light short focal length even a type of shot you're interested in?

The lens is a great lens - it's sharp, it's 2.8 and it has IS - all great features that make this a great lens. But in all honesty, if low light, shallow dof shots are what you're after, money is much better spent on 85mm 1.8 or even 50mm 1.8.
JohnG 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 11:40 AM.