# Normal Lens or High-End Compact?



## Cory (Dec 5, 2012)

My telephoto lenses are flawless works of perfection - 100 2.0 and 200 2.8, but I can't seem to figure out what's the "best" normal zoom or prime (for my T1i). I currently have a Sigma 30 1.4, but it just doesn't blow me out like the telephoto primes do. I'm considering, though, the venerable 17-55 (will likely upgrade to the 7D II one day).
Has anyone thrown in the towel and just use a high-end compact for the normal range/general photography, travel, etc. and the DSLR for sports? 
8) :-*   ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2012)

Has anyone ever used so many emoticons strung together? *wink*

IMO, the EF-S 17-55mm is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C. But primes will often give better IQ (there are exceptions) and almost always thinner DoF, etc., since f/2.8 is the fastest zoom available. 

The IQ from your T1i and a 17-55mm will far exceed what you'd get from a high-end P&S in almost all cases. I do have an S100, but that's only for times when it's just not feasible to bring the dSLR (the S100 fits in a pocket, which is why I have no real interest in a G-series, etc., although the Sony RX-100 is tempting for the larger sensor in the same size chassis).


----------



## Cory (Dec 5, 2012)

Thanks. Maybe, then, getting the 40 2.8 for when traveling light is a great thing. That leaves a 17-55 vs Sigma 30 1.4 debate. On image quality alone would the 17-55 maybe be preferred in most cases? I'm getting good with my flash and don't really need less than 2.8 for non-indoor sports pics.


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 5, 2012)

+1 for the shorty forty however it is an odd length on a crop.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> +1 for the shorty forty however it is an *odd* length on a crop.



64 is an even number. 

I do like the 40/2.8 on my 1D X, though...


----------



## robbymack (Dec 5, 2012)

funny you ask this as I have been walking around a lot with my 70-200 and not bothering to take any other lens with me and using my iphone as my wide angle camera. Seems to work for me, IQ is on par with just about any other mid range PS out there plus it has the advantage of being very light and something Id take with me anyway. It also is the best PS on the market for taking the photograph, doing some quick pp through snapseed and off to my facebook or flickr accounts. But if that doesn't work for you I'd invest in the 17-55 f2.8 IS over any of the wide to normal primes especially on APS C. Its way more flexible and you don't lose much if anything in the IQ department. My 17-55 was glued to my 7d.


----------



## Kingnog (Dec 5, 2012)

robbymack said:


> funny you ask this as I have been walking around a lot with my 70-200 and not bothering to take any other lens with me and using my iphone as my wide angle camera. Seems to work for me, IQ is on par with just about any other mid range PS out there plus it has the advantage of being very light and something Id take with me anyway. It also is the best PS on the market for taking the photograph, doing some quick pp through snapseed and off to my facebook or flickr accounts. But if that doesn't work for you I'd invest in the 17-55 f2.8 IS over any of the wide to normal primes especially on APS C. Its way more flexible and you don't lose much if anything in the IQ department. My 17-55 was glued to my 7d.



If you're taking photos with facebook or flickr as the only location of the end-product, you don't need a DSLR.


----------



## thelebaron (Dec 5, 2012)

Kingnog said:


> robbymack said:
> 
> 
> > funny you ask this as I have been walking around a lot with my 70-200 and not bothering to take any other lens with me and using my iphone as my wide angle camera. Seems to work for me, IQ is on par with just about any other mid range PS out there plus it has the advantage of being very light and something Id take with me anyway. It also is the best PS on the market for taking the photograph, doing some quick pp through snapseed and off to my facebook or flickr accounts. But if that doesn't work for you I'd invest in the 17-55 f2.8 IS over any of the wide to normal primes especially on APS C. Its way more flexible and you don't lose much if anything in the IQ department. My 17-55 was glued to my 7d.
> ...



what a terrible post, majority of the people who have dslrs dont need them but its a hobby. you didnt *need* to post this but yet you did.


----------



## DavidB (Dec 5, 2012)

Kingnog said:


> If you're taking photos with facebook or flickr as the only location of the end-product, you don't need a DSLR.



Sure you don't NEED a DSLR for Facebook pictures, sort of like you don't NEED electricity to survive, however I can *always* tell the difference. Compare side-by-side a 5D3+85MM 1.2L vs an iPhone, and even if the pic is downsized to web quality through facebook, you will see a massive difference.


----------



## robbymack (Dec 5, 2012)

Kingnog said:


> robbymack said:
> 
> 
> > funny you ask this as I have been walking around a lot with my 70-200 and not bothering to take any other lens with me and using my iphone as my wide angle camera. Seems to work for me, IQ is on par with just about any other mid range PS out there plus it has the advantage of being very light and something Id take with me anyway. It also is the best PS on the market for taking the photograph, doing some quick pp through snapseed and off to my facebook or flickr accounts. But if that doesn't work for you I'd invest in the 17-55 f2.8 IS over any of the wide to normal primes especially on APS C. Its way more flexible and you don't lose much if anything in the IQ department. My 17-55 was glued to my 7d.
> ...



...you see I was simply comparing an iphone to a mid range PS and noting the benefits that you can fire it off to facebook or flickr with the swipe of a finger. Different strokes for different folks, I enjoy the portability of the iphone and not carrying around a bag full of lenses. I know this may be sacrilegious to some but sometimes I don't even bring a camera on an outing  as I enjoy the company of my wife and kids a lot more than taking photos


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 5, 2012)

Cory said:


> My telephoto lenses are flawless works of perfection - 100 2.0 and 200 2.8, but I can't seem to figure out what's the "best" normal zoom or prime (for my T1i). I currently have a Sigma 30 1.4, but it just doesn't blow me out like the telephoto primes do. I'm considering, though, the venerable 17-55 (will likely upgrade to the 7D II one day).
> Has anyone thrown in the towel and just use a high-end compact for the normal range/general photography, travel, etc. and the DSLR for sports?
> 8) :-*   ;D



It really depends on you on compact vs. DSLR. I'd choose the DSLR every time; my wife would choose the P&S every time if she even remembers to bring a camera. A lot of people choose their phone cams over a dedicated camera. I like having a high quality source that I can print large if I want to later.

Have you checked your Sigma 30 on another body that has AFMA? Are the pictures not sharp wide open? The 17-55 is a nice lens, but good primes would still beat it out. I'd test out the new canon 35 f/2 and sigma 35 f/1.4 and the 17-55 before deciding among them.


----------



## bainsybike (Dec 5, 2012)

> That leaves a 17-55 vs Sigma 30 1.4 debate. On image quality alone would the 17-55 maybe be preferred in most cases? I'm getting good with my flash and don't really need less than 2.8 for non-indoor sports pics.



I have the Sigma 30 and the Canon 15-85, and I'd say that within its aperture range the Canon IQ is better than the Sigma, so I would expect that to go for the 17-55 as well. But I still like using the Sigma as a walkaround lens, partly because its a prime (so I have to think a bit more) and partly because it handles very nicely. I find the Canon heavy and bulky (clumsy?) by comparison, and the 17-55 is bigger and heavier still.


----------



## EYEONE (Dec 5, 2012)

The Shorty Forty is an amazing little lens.


----------



## Cory (Dec 5, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> Cory said:
> 
> 
> > Have you checked your Sigma 30 on another body that has AFMA? Are the pictures not sharp wide open? The 17-55 is a nice lens, but good primes would still beat it out. I'd test out the new canon 35 f/2 and sigma 35 f/1.4 and the 17-55 before deciding among them.
> ...


----------



## funkboy (Dec 5, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> Have you checked your Sigma 30 on another body that has AFMA? Are the pictures not sharp wide open? The 17-55 is a nice lens, but good primes would still beat it out. I'd test out the new canon 35 f/2 and sigma 35 f/1.4 and the 17-55 before deciding among them.



Add the new Canon 40mm and Voigtländer 20mm pancakes to that list, and you've covered pretty much everything I'd say on the topic.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 6, 2012)

DavidB said:


> Kingnog said:
> 
> 
> > If you're taking photos with facebook or flickr as the only location of the end-product, you don't need a DSLR.
> ...



Ditto. Everyone is motivated and driven by different needs and motivations and then they grow. Don't rain on someone's parade just because they use a certain camera or post to a certain site. *The U.S. Whitehouse uses Flickr for Pete's sake!* (Ha, ha, get it?) I for one am more embarassed about how much I've spent on my gear than what I haven't spent. If I make great pictures at a wedding with my Rebel and the paid pro uses a 1D series, does that mean my pictures automatically suck? Or do they just suck after I post them on facebook? Facebook is simply a tool for sharing. It doesn't dictate anything other than the desire to share with others. It certainly doesn't dictate what camera should be used.

I don't NEED 90% of the stuff I have. I made great pictures for years with various P&S cameras and a film Rebel that everyone enjoyed. Now I feel I've grown and I prefer the DSLR. But the best camera is still the one you actually use and have with you.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 6, 2012)

robbymack said:


> Kingnog said:
> 
> 
> > robbymack said:
> ...


----------

