hi guys. im currently using a 400d and im looking into buy a new lens to further develop my style of photography. Currently, I have no defined style yet, but Im interested in developing into event journalism or like street candid. I would also love to have my lens to be a good general walkabout lens as i would bring it to travel. Im currently looking at a few lenses.
24 - 105 mm F4.0L IS USM - I like the focal range of this, but abit not too satisfied with the 24 end. cos im using a 1.6 crop camera. I have tested the lens. I LOVE the the weight of the lens. Image quality is sharp. The Is was useful at the 105 end. But i was worrying if this lens is suitable for low light? cos its like f4? Would u guys recommend if i get this lens and get a 50mm prime to compliment it?
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L - Im ok with the focal range as well. the comments would be the same as above. But what i worry is without IS, can i take as clear photos as i may be quite shaky. The speed of the lens is great. I can take good photos without beaming strobes. But as i siad above no IS. Anyway how does this compare to the tamron 17-50 f2.8? Is the tamron good enough to do low light shoots. Im aware that both have no IS.
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM - This lens is godlike. I love everything. Everything i need including IS and f2.8. BUT is this a good investment? Its not a L lens, though clarity is almost similar. The only thing its missing from an L lens is the ruggedness of an L lens. The price of this lens also almost pars up to the prices of the L lens. What i worry is that in the near future i might upgrade to cameras that do not use the EF-S mount, and i may not be able to use it then. Thus having second thought.
Guys please do give me your views on which lens to get. Pros and Cons if u do use all these lens. Hopefully i can decide which one to get soon, as I will be flying to thailand next month.
24 - 105 mm F4.0L IS USM - I like the focal range of this, but abit not too satisfied with the 24 end. cos im using a 1.6 crop camera. I have tested the lens. I LOVE the the weight of the lens. Image quality is sharp. The Is was useful at the 105 end. But i was worrying if this lens is suitable for low light? cos its like f4? Would u guys recommend if i get this lens and get a 50mm prime to compliment it?
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L - Im ok with the focal range as well. the comments would be the same as above. But what i worry is without IS, can i take as clear photos as i may be quite shaky. The speed of the lens is great. I can take good photos without beaming strobes. But as i siad above no IS. Anyway how does this compare to the tamron 17-50 f2.8? Is the tamron good enough to do low light shoots. Im aware that both have no IS.
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM - This lens is godlike. I love everything. Everything i need including IS and f2.8. BUT is this a good investment? Its not a L lens, though clarity is almost similar. The only thing its missing from an L lens is the ruggedness of an L lens. The price of this lens also almost pars up to the prices of the L lens. What i worry is that in the near future i might upgrade to cameras that do not use the EF-S mount, and i may not be able to use it then. Thus having second thought.
Guys please do give me your views on which lens to get. Pros and Cons if u do use all these lens. Hopefully i can decide which one to get soon, as I will be flying to thailand next month.