Photographs taken recently at a family wedding . . .
I just bought a Nikon D3100. Having never owned a DSLR before....
It's amazing imo... the shots are incredible and its so light etc with HD video.
How are you finding the 17-55mm? Am looking at getting a better quality replacement for the 17-85mm I have at the moment, and am seriously considering the 24-70mm f2.8L, but have heard good things about the 17-55mm too. I have the 10-22mm, which is why I'm angling towards the 24-70. Otherwise it'd be the 17-55 I'd expect.
R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best
R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi
Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath
"How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.
"There's more chance of SoC making a good post than Smith averaging 99.95." - Furball
"**** you're such a **** poster." - Furball
Amazing SJS, can you post a photo of your camera?
Rest In Peace Craigos
Let me update you on my gear first :-)
I got myself the 5d Mark II - YIPPPPEEEEE !!!
I needed to do it because I was making much less use of the 70-200 f/2.8 and that hurts when you buy such a fabulous piece of glass and have to break into a bank vault to pay for it.
For example, the wedding pictures here were taken on the 5D with the 70-200. If I had it mounted on the 7d I would have had to move further back and thats not always a great option in the hurly burly of Indian weddings . . I also took many shots at the wedding inside fairly small places with this combination of lens and camera which the crop body wouldn't have allowed.
Now coming to your particular query.
Well you know I had both the 10-22 and the 17-55. I carried them around even for landscapes. I thought, maybe with two crop bodies I could use them both (and thats true) but the moment I got the 5d I knew exactly what I needed to do. I am giving the 10-22 to my son along with my Rebel 2Ti.
I have bought the EF 16-35 which I will put on the 5d and the 17-55 on the 7d will give me effectively 28-88 and the two together are perfect with one full frame and one crop body.
There is no way I am going to give up my 17-55 and you know money is not the issue (not that the 17-55 is cheap). Its a great lens for a crop body trust me. The EF 24-70 f/2.8 is a great lens but its too long for a crop body. I am not happy with the fact that the 24-70 does not come with IS.
I still shoot more pictures with the 17-55 than any other lens and I now have quite a few.
Okay lets consider the options. I am assuming you have two crop body cameras today but you may want to change that tomorrow and have to remember that too.
With two crop frame cameras
1. EFS 10-22 (16-35) and EFS 17-55 (28-88)
2. EFS 10-22 (16-35) and EF 24-70 (38-112)
and, if you have one FF and one crop body . . .
3. EFS 10-22 (16-35) and EF 24-70
4. EF 16-35 and EFS 17-55 (38-88)
In the first scenario I like the first option because
a) I like the overlap in range between the two lenses. It means the longer zoom has enough of the wider angle for you to carry just one. In the second option the 38mm lower focal length of the 24-70 is much than the 28 of the 17-55. At those small focal lengths, 10mm is HUGE. Both in landscapes and even more so covering interiors of, say, churches, you will miss the wider angle and switching cameras is not always an option
b) The advantage of IS does not need to be stressed
c) The 17-55 does not suffer in any respect against the 24-55 other than what is widely written about build quality. Well, it is a moot point as to how much weightage one gives to the metallic body. . . some surely but how much?
The only advantage the 24-70 has is the upper end of the focal range, particularly for portraits. One has to decide how much of which end of the range one is going to use/miss.
Coming to the second option, which is must be seriously considered if you want to change to a full frame even in four years' time, I clearly prefer the second option and thats a decision I have already taken - so I have already put my money and mouth in the same place.
The reason is much simpler
I will do anything to move to a camera with wider maximum aperture throughout its focal length range. The 10-22 suffers in this regard and it was very easy to discard that one instead of the 17-55 when I realised I wouldn't be able to use both those lenses together on my new camera body configuration.
10-22 is also the cheaper of the two lenses by far so getting rid of it in used conditions hurts much less.
There is a lot of competition between the 17-55 and the 24-70 but there is NONE between the 10-22 and the 16-35. The last two are as chalk and cheese.
So you have to remember that when the day of reckoning comes and you decide one of your lenses has to go out of the gear box, 10-22 would be a likely candidate. Not because its a lousy lens but it is not in that elite company.
People talk about how much do you shoot at f/2.8 and I tell them a hell of a lot BUT that is not all there is to getting a lens with f/2.8 available right through its focal range.
I doubt if I will ever but the 24-70 but I may buy the 24-105 as a walk around lens (for use on the FF only mind you). If it was available at f/2.8 I would have done so already :-)
I hope this might help you make up your mind.
I gave identical advise to my son by the way :-)
I do miss writing about the game but no one seems to have any use for old-fashioned cricket writers any more ;-)
It's a wonderful camera! Am hoping to get there myself one day, but it's a little way off yet.
Thanks for the advice on the 17-55 and 24-70 too. I only have one crop body at the moment, so everything goes on there. Have to swap lenses around so am looking at a set that will complement each other at the moment. Am angling towards the 24-70 due to its compatibility with FF cameras eventually. Also like what it does! haha
I realise it's a bit long on a crop body, but I was thinking that with the 10-22 as well it's not a bad option. As far as I know, the 10-22 is pretty good through the 17-22mm focal range anyway.
Will be a tough decision though, was all set on the 17-40 f4L and eventually got the 10-22mm, so who knows what'll happen haha
If one is a bit short on focal length its not so bad to take in a wider field of vision and crop a bit later. The cameras are so high on resolution that a good crisp image allows that easily. However, doing the reverse, filling in more when you are too long on focal length is not an option. And when talking of landscapes (or even church interiors) one is limited by what one can do with "zooming on foot". Of course a second lens in 10-22 helps but switching is not a great idea while at site - not always.
I know the 24-70 is raved about a lot and the 17-55 is a bit underrated on the internet but not by those who have used it.
Read this . . .
The BEST Canon EOS Lenses
There are only four zoom lenses in the top 20 and of that three are versions of the EF 70-200. The fourth is the 17-55. Its a very good lens trust me :-)
Here it is - the Canon EOS 5d Mark II with battery grip and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM.
I doubt if there is a better combination of camera and lens than that. Well the EOS 1d Mark III I suppose but I wouldn't know the difference would I :-)
If I have to find any fault with the 5d it is that it does not come with a built in flash. You rarely ever need it trust me but when you do, you do miss it. I have the Speedlite 580 but its already a lot of camera and lens to carry :-( PLUS, you need it so rarely you dont want lugging it around.
Its not a great image but I shot it quickly after you asked for it :-)
Last edited by SJS; 07-12-2010 at 12:39 AM.
I am thinking of a flash next up on the list (maybe in a while too). Was at an event the other night and couldn't use the on-camera flash as the 10-22mm is too wide (leaves a dark circle across the bottom of the shot).
I reckon something like the flash you've got will prove itself invaluable in time SJS. Probably not ideal to use with the 70-200mm, as it'll only be useful at shorter focal lengths most of the time anyway. But with a 50mm/85mm/17-55 on the front it'll work much better than the on-camera flashes on other models. They're usually way too bright/difficult to get the right amount of light with.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)