I trust Dopers and have a couple of technical questions not addressed in the plethora of online reviews. This is a serious chunk of change for me, so I want to get this right…
I’m looking at this Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens, which I happened to stumble upon while looking for a replacement for my Canon 50 mm ƒ/1.8 which had an unfortunate experience with a concrete floor. Luckily, it was only a $100 lens.
The chief attraction of the 50 mm for me, of course, was for low-light shooting (it died in a museum, for example). Of course with the crop factor, it made for some tight spots. The potential replacement, though, has a nice zoom range that coincides with the kit lens. The chief difference here is there’s a fixed ƒ/2.8 throughout the entire range, and supposedly the IS is good for 3 stops, making me ask these questions:
[ul]
[li]Is the IS good for 3 stops, or up to three stops? What kind of tolerances are we talking about here?[/li][li]If I do the math right, then shooting at ƒ/2.8 with IS gives me the same light (different speed and still targets, I know) as a super, duper fast ƒ/1.0?[/li][li]Chiefly I’m looking for low-light performance. Will I be disappointed with the combination of speed and IS versus, say, going to the Canon ƒ/1.4 (although crop factor is an issue), or one of the 28 mm or 30 mm fast, prime lenses from Canon or Sigma?[/li][/ul]
Remember, I’m a rank amateur, and have only been doing DSLR shooting since June, and unfortunately not much shooting since I’ve been on this job! Thanks!
If I had the money, that’s the lens that would sit on my camera all the time by default. I’ve lusted after it for years, and it’s got excellent reviews. You’ll be pretty happy with it, I think. The Canon 50/1.8 is a great little lens, but not really sharp until stopped down to about f/2.8, imho, so you should be seeing similar performance from the 17-55. It is, however, a LOT larger and heavier, which is something you might want to consider.
The IS is good for 3 stops, but it’s not an absolute 3-stop gain - it depends on various things, including of course degree and direction of movement. It doesn’t give you the same light as an f/1.0 lens, but the ability to shoot at approximately the same shutter speed as you would with the faster lens. It won’t, naturally, compensate for subject motion when you decrease the shutter speed.
I’d personally look to try and have either the 50/1.8 or the 50/1.4 available as well, if possible, for situations when you want to have a lighter lens, but YMMV.
I think if you’ve been pleased with the 50mm/f1.8, then you’ll be knocked out by the 50mm/f1.4. I just picked up the 1.4 and it’s one amazing lens that’s better constructed than the 1.8. Will handle low-light situations even better than the 1.8 and its large aperture allows fantastic DOF manipulations in your shots. Of course, like your 1.8, there is no zoom, but to me that was a plus because it has forced me to zoom with my “legs” and to pay greater attention to composing my shots.
I own the 17-55 f2.8, it’s awesome. However for low-light I still use my 50mm f1.8. The 17-55mm is a great walk-around lens, suitable for many, many things, and, yes, wide angle is really useful. However, the 50mm f1.8 is just simply much better at what it does than the 17-55mm f2.8, and I guarantee you’ll miss it. Get both! You’re buying a $1000 lens, what’s another $100?
OTOH, for low-light work, you could just get a speedlite, though some museums frown on flash photography.
Thanks everyone! I bit the bullet, and ordered the 17-55 ƒ/2.8. I also ordered a Speedlite 430 EX II, because I figured that maybe I’d need something more than fill flash at some point (and what’s one entire month of per diem worth anyway? If I were home, I’d have to pay for my own food!)
I’ve been so happy with non-flash photography, though, that I’m going to have to do some learning on when to use the flash again (as opposed to my old habits of P&S and automatic flash and bad pictures).
More good news: I also found a site on how to disassemble my 50 mm ƒ/1.8, and I was able to put it back together again. None of the glass had broken; the lens had just popped apart. It’s noisy as all heck when it focuses, but the pictures seem sharp enough. I know it’s insane to worry about a $100 lens after blowing so much money on the new stuff, but I’m glad that I was able to salvage it. It’s been one of my favorite lenses! On the downside, when I proposed to my wife the idea of a thousand dollar lens, she asked me if we’d even be having the conversation if I hadn’t destroyed the 50 mm. Not sure if I should tell her I fixed it.
Now as I read that, the reality is washing over me. I just paid how f’ing much for a piece of glass?
Congrats on the new gear! You’re really going to like that lens. And congrats on fixing the cheapo (and awesome in its own way) lens. Good news all around.
Do expect some substantial adjustment to using a speedlite. At least, it was substantial for me, and a real departure from my long-standing existing-light attitude. Even now, after taking a more than a few speedlite photos, it can be difficult to consistently get what I intended using a flash, even a very good flash.
Canon lenses are good. If it says the image stabilization is 3 stops, then it is. Canon does not over state their image stabilization. The f2.0 200mm someone mentioned is 4 stops and ungodly expensive. But if you’ve got that baby, a photog vest and a bunch of “credentials” hanging around your neck you can get in anywhere.
Do not replace your 1.8 with another 1.8. Take care of your lenses and they will last you forever. Mine have lasted me 23 years for my first one (50mm macro, great lens). You will buy new camera bodies before your lenses. If you take care of them. Which you seem to have trouble doing. Tips:
If you are going to be out of your comfort zone, do not change lenses. Rather, have two camera bodies with the appropriate lenses on them and keep them on. Keep a UV filter on the front of each lens. They are a lot cheaper than lenses. Rebel camera bodies are cheap. Lenses are not cheap. Especially good lenses.
A beginner (which I still am) will do really well with with a few Canon zoom lenses. I have a bunch. My most expensive lens is still my 50mm macro.
Once you are ready to go pro, get a full frame sensor and the 85mm L 1.2f lens. The wide aperture will give you an out of focus background for portraits and flowers that will knock your socks off. And the color saturation rivals that of the Leica for a little bit less: $1,900.
Meh, good glass tends to keep it’s value (as long as you don’t drop it). If you ever need the cash, or better yet, want to trade up, the value is still there. At least that is what I keep telling myself.
As a n00b, I naively followed the museum people’s instructions to check my “backpack,” so I hand-carried the kit lens, and left the 50 mm mounted. On the second floor, I thought I had a good shot of the central square, but I needed wide, and with no bag to use for the lens exchange, the 50 mm slipped, bounced on the concrete floor, and came apart in two pieces.
When we left the museum and got to the castillo, they tried the same thing: I’d have to leave my “backpack” at the coat-check. When I told them I needed my lenses, they understood and let me in. Hopefully that will work at other places I plan to visit.
I won’t walk around with two bodies, and I have no intention of ever going pro! Well, maybe if I have no other choice career-wise!
Canon just started instant rebates for both your buys. Hope you got the $100 rebate. It’s always worth waiting for these Canon deals since they do them all the time.
