Confused on which lens to buy.

[LAZyNPL]

I use to think like you, but experience tells me otherwise.

I dun recommend him to invest in advance cos:
i) Lens technology improve drastically ~ in no times new lens will superceed any current models;
ii) Lens prices drop rapidly these days ~ the EF-S17-55/2.8 is still relatively new with a high price-tag, which I believe, the depreciation on tis lens will superceed the loss when he decide to sell the Tamron 17-50/2.8;
iii) When one recognise his/her style/habbit, he/she will eventually turn to lens which are speciallizing in tat particular field. As we know that, there isn't any perfect lens tat covers all field/subject, one is better left reserve with choices till he/she very sure on his/her needs.

:angel:

Unless he is just playing with photography for a couple of years and then totally drop it, I see no reason in getting a "less expensive" lens first to develop a style THEN go ahead and buy a similar lens by the OM. Why not just invest once and then forget about it rather than having to deal with selling the "less expensive" lens later which does not retain its value as much?

 

[Dithiolium]

The EFS17-55 and EF24-105 have dropped in price earlier this year, about March-April.
Save about $300-$400.
Now is a good time to get either. Would have been better before 1st July 2007.

If you're still undecided after more recommendations by fellow CSers, then get the affordable 50/1.8, to check if you prefer F2.8 or F4 in terms of speed. Then settle on your final purchase.

The 50/1.8 is close to the max focal length of the 17-55. Test if you like that. Want more tele? then get the 24-105. F/4 too slow for indoor (and it is)? consider a flash.

 

[lordpain]

He never mentioned 50 mm till I suggested it.

i did. LOLs.

 

[randytay]

I use to think like you, but experience tells me otherwise.

I dun recommend him to invest in advance cos:
i) Lens technology improve drastically ~ in no times new lens will superceed any current models;
ii) Lens prices drop rapidly these days ~ the EF-S17-55/2.8 is still relatively new with a high price-tag, which I believe, the depreciation on tis lens will superceed the loss when he decide to sell the Tamron 17-50/2.8;
iii) When one recognise his/her style/habbit, he/she will eventually turn to lens which are speciallizing in tat particular field. As we know that, there isn't any perfect lens tat covers all field/subject, one is better left reserve with choices till he/she very sure on his/her needs.

:angel:

I can't argue against someone's experience since its all different and subjective but:

i) I am not sure what lens technology you are talking about that improved so drastically but it is not as rapid as the sensors being developed in cameras. Case in point: It took more than several years for Canon to replace 28-70 2.8 with 24-70 2.8 or 16-35 with 16-35II. Or even 85 1.2II. Even so, these improvements are marginal at best and is not "drastic".

ii) If you are spending that much money on a system, a couple of hundred dollars saved on a lens is negligible, coupled with the fact that the cost of depreciation is still lower than the cost of another lens AND don't forget with the trouble of selling a "cheaper" lens that will depreciate much more quicker.

iii) Regardless your style or habit, a range of 24-70 is always applicable unless you shoot macro or micro exclusively.

Given the above, it is still not wise to go the other route and end up penny wise pound foolish.

 

[LAZyNPL]

I agree tat the 24~105/4 is alot cheaper nowadays and probably will drop just another $100~200 the most.
But I still think the 17~55/2.8 is way-too-ex for an EF-S

If lordpain is using any full-frame body and will stick around for a walk-around lens; I would strongly recommend the 24~105/4 :thumbsup: At least, for a humble $1.5k this lens serve very well as a all-rounder w/o the weight and speed is adequate with the IS. Not to mention the ease of letting-go as this lens is highly demanded by Wed-Photographers

The EFS17-55 and EF24-105 have dropped in price earlier this year, about March-April.
Save about $300-$400.
Now is a good time to get either. Would have been better before 1st July 2007.

If you're still undecided after more recommendations by fellow CSers, then get the affordable 50/1.8, to check if you prefer F2.8 or F4 in terms of speed. Then settle on your final purchase.

The 50/1.8 is close to the max focal length of the 17-55. Test if you like that. Want more tele? then get the 24-105. F/4 too slow for indoor (and it is)? consider a flash.

 

[LAZyNPL]

i) I am not sure what lens technology you are talking about that improved so drastically but it is not as rapid as the sensors being developed in cameras.

Indeed, tat's to say rather to spend the additional $800(price difference between the Tamron 17~50 & Canon 17~55) on a better body like the 30D than on e lens. But if the money has to be spent on the lens; then invest on a firm-buy which is easier upgradable.

ii) If you are spending that much money on a system, a couple of hundred dollars saved on a lens is negligible, coupled with the fact that the cost of depreciation is still lower than the cost of another lens AND don't forget with the trouble of selling a "cheaper" lens that will depreciate much more quicker.

Depreciation comes in %; the higher the initial cost, the bigger the fall! Now even a small 30% depreciation rate on the $1,400 Canon 17~55 lose more than a 50% depreciation rate on the $600 Tamron 17~50.

iii) Regardless your style or habit, a range of 24-70 is always applicable unless you shoot macro or micro exclusively.

Again, Yes and No. It fully depending on one's shooting habbit. Either way, a 2nd lens can compensate for the other part of missing range.

 

[randytay]

Indeed, tat's to say rather to spend the additional $800(price difference between the Tamron 17~50 & Canon 17~55) on a better body like the 30D than on e lens. But if the money has to be spent on the lens; then invest on a firm-buy which is easier upgradable.


Depreciation comes in %; the higher the initial cost, the bigger the fall! Now even a small 30% depreciation rate on the $1,400 Canon 17~55 lose more than a 50% depreciation rate on the $600 Tamron 17~50.


Again, Yes and No. It fully depending on one's shooting habbit. Either way, a 2nd lens can compensate for the other part of missing range.

Point taken. But assuming there is no upgrade path towards a 1.3 or 1:1 sensor, the 17-55 is STILL an excellent for the 30D, or any of its successor that utilise the aps-c sensor.

The problem with the maths is that a Tamron lens will depreciate more than 50% while the Canon less than 30%. Maybe the market is a little different back home in Singapore but I would have no problem selling a 17-55 lens and reocover at least 90% of my investment. With a Tamron, I would probably have to wait a lot longer and when I find a buyer, he/she will be haggling over prices.

It would be good if you can substantiate your statement about how a certain shooting habit would not utilise a 24-70 range (base on a full frame). As mentioned, unless you shoot exclusively macro or micro, or perhaps some really specialised filed like scientific reseach or astronomy, there is not 1 genre of photography that will not utilise that range.

 

[LAZyNPL]

The problem with the maths is that a Tamron lens will depreciate more than 50% while the Canon less than 30%. Maybe the market is a little different back home in Singapore but I would have no problem selling a 17-55 lens and reocover at least 90% of my investment. With a Tamron, I would probably have to wait a lot longer and when I find a buyer, he/she will be haggling over prices.

Indeed... Here in SG, unlikely one can sell a brand-new lens (any brand) at less than 10% depreciation; unless the lens is less than a quarter of a year old. And since the Tamron after depreciation is only $300, it will attract plenty of beginners/students!

It would be good if you can substantiate your statement about how a certain shooting habit would not utilise a 24-70 range (base on a full frame). As mentioned, unless you shoot exclusively macro or micro, or perhaps some really specialised filed like scientific reseach or astronomy, there is not 1 genre of photography that will not utilise that range.

Ok, take me as example, I'm still using film (which is full-frame, off-course); I use either a 17~40/4 or a prime 24mm with a 70~200/4 for anything other than macro and bird.

I'm not asking lordpain to follow what I use; I own the TS-24mm and TS-90mm which prove undispensable in my landscape and close-up work. But I will not recommend to him unless he has really find his home in these fields. I would rather recommend him the 17~40mm which was my previous travel lens. Similarly I would recommend him the 70~200mm cos the non-IS version are really steal-buy and the range prove to be extremely versatile on street and travel. Too bad nowadays my hand shake pretty badly so I have no choice but to pay the additional $600 just for the IS function!

Be it that lordpain will eventually upgrade his lens, or the body; the fact is, at $1.4k, the 17~55/2.8 is simply overpriced; which also leave little option to upgrade (to full-frame) in future.

 

[lordpain]

thanks guys for such useful comments. But I probably wouldnt upgrade me lenses if i get the 24-105, or the 24-70. I will only probably upgrade the body to a full frame.

 

[zekai]

35 f2. sharp & light! train your composition and framing.

 

[LAZyNPL]

35 f2. sharp & light! train your composition and framing.

Agreed. Though I have not used the Canon 35/2 before; I use other make of this range.
The old school 35mm can prove very useful in travel photography: usable on landscape, journalism & people. A F2 aperture provides good brightness of lens without the weight.
Prime-lens do train-up framing skill.

:angel: