# 1 Good lens vs a few crap lens's?



## Jixr (Oct 15, 2013)

Hi everyone, Here is my delema.

I'm currently thinking about selling off my lens collection and trying to get myself an L lens.


Currently I have the following: ( canon t3i body )
Canon 50mm 1.8 ~$120
Canon 18-55 kit lens ~ can't give them away
Tamron 75-300 cheapo zoom ~$100
Rokinon 8mm Fisheye ~ $250
Canon 40mm 2.8 ~ $150

Out of all the lens's I always find myself going for the 40mm as its the widest I have ( aside from the kit lens which I rarely use ) I always find myself having to step back to get the shot I want, so i've been finding myself being a big fan of wide angle lens's.

And as fun as my lens collection is, the fisheye is a toy, I've used the tamron maybe 3 or 4 times, the kit lens only when I need to go wider than my 40, and the 50 when I am in the dark ( though its hard to focus in the dark with this thing, so I usually miss my focus ) 

Pretty much my 40 is my go to lens, though when I do need to change lens's its always a pain and is just that much more gear to carry around. So i've been thinking of selling off my others and picking up the 17-40mm F4 L. ( or maybe the 24-105mm, but I like the idea of the enclosed body of the 17-40mm )

One lens would obviously be much easier to carry around, should get better photos than everything I have now, and should cover 80% of the focal range I use. ( most everything else can be cropped ) 

So what are your thoughts? 1 L lens? or seveal cheap-o lens's? ( unfortunately i'm a budget photographer and "both" is not in the books )

Ideas? tips? suggestions? all welcome!


----------



## Jim Saunders (Oct 15, 2013)

If you don't have it yet get Lightroom and shoot RAW; LR's lens profiles will help a lot for modest lenses. After that I'd worry about getting something better.

Jim


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 15, 2013)

One lens the EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS USM instead

With this one you can forget about the L unless later you want a prime in that range.


----------



## Pi (Oct 15, 2013)

I do not think that the 17-40 is a good choice for a crop camera. Not that it will perform poorly but there are choices which make more sense, like the 17-55 (faster, IS) or even the Sigma 18-35, if you can somehow deal with the reported AF problems.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 15, 2013)

Pi said:


> I do not think that the 17-40 is a good choice for a crop camera. Not that it will perform poorly but there are choices which make more sense, like the 17-55 (faster, IS) or even the Sigma 18-35, if you can somehow deal with the reported AF problems.


 
As much as it hurts me to say this, I agree with Pi.  

The 17-55 is excellent. If you are looking for something costing a lot less, the 15-85 does a good job, and keep the 40.


----------



## Jixr (Oct 15, 2013)

I do have LR and PS, and depending on the photo I do use the lens profiles, I shoot Raw as well.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 15, 2013)

While the 17-55 2.8 EF-S is a great lens, you might want to also consider the 15-85 EF-S. Optically, both are excellent. The 17-55 is a faster lens, but the 15-85 is both wider and longer. If you find yourself wanting wider, then the 15 mm is very important (comparable to 24 mm on full frame). To my taste, the 17-55 is neither wide enough or long enough. 

Outdoor shooter? Get the 15-85. Like to shoot available light portraits inside, get the 17-55 2.8. Keep the 50mm 1.8 for when you need the extra speed.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 15, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > I do not think that the 17-40 is a good choice for a crop camera. Not that it will perform poorly but there are choices which make more sense, like the 17-55 (faster, IS) or even the Sigma 18-35, if you can somehow deal with the reported AF problems.
> ...



Agree as well...

If you are shooting crop cameras and like zooms, there are three special lenses to look at:

If you want to go long, the 70-200F4IS offers outstanding image quality at half the price and weight of the F2.8 version. On paper the specs are a hair better than the F2.8 version, but so close you could not tell the difference even with pixel-peeping... This lens is so sharp you can use a teleconverter on a crop body and barely see any drop in image quality.

If you want to go wide, either the Canon 10-20 or the Sigma 10-22 will give an ultra-wide view of the world... just make sure that you use the lens profiles in Lightroom to correct for vignetting and distortion, common problems with ultra-wide lenses....

In the middle ground there is the 17-55F2.8... covers most of the ground between the other two lenses and is a fairly fast lens with great image quality. This is the lens that is usually mounted to my 60D, it is arguably the best normal range lens to put on a crop camera. The only other lens that comes close is the 15-85.... The 15-85 is a slower lens, goes slightly wider and a reasonable bit longer. The 17-55 is noticeably sharper for wide angle, the 15-85 is noticeably sharper at the long end... If you tend to shoot at the wide end, I'd go for the 17-55, if you tend to shoot at the long end I'd go for the 15-85.. both lenses are about the same size physically, but the 17-55 is a bit bigger (inch longer) and a fair bit heavier(40%)


----------



## Jixr (Oct 15, 2013)

well, after reading the above I do suppose the 17-55 2.8 is the better value and allows me more range.


I have tried out the 70-200mm, and I'll get one eventually, but I rarely use that focal lenth. 

Most of my shots are either indoors, or scenery/architecture shots. 

Is the 17-55 a big drop in build quality and optics compared to an L lens that iv'e been talking about?

pretty much I would like to buy a high quality low end zoom, then pick up a 70-200mm f4 and have a cheap 50 and that would pretty much be all the lens's any hobby photog would need.


----------



## TexPhoto (Oct 15, 2013)

I love to have lenses, and love to have a lot of them, but I like your idea, and I think you'll do great with that setup. The 17-55 is a great lens, but it's and EFS. With the 17-40 you can move to a FF, and keep shooting.


----------



## bvukich (Oct 15, 2013)

Jixr said:


> Is the 17-55 a big drop in build quality and optics compared to an L lens that iv'e been talking about?



Build quality isn't up to L standards, but optically it is.


----------



## bvukich (Oct 15, 2013)

TexPhoto said:


> I love to have lenses, and love to have a lot of them, but I like your idea, and I think you'll do great with that setup. The 17-55 is a great lens, but it's and EFS. With the 17-40 you can move to a FF, and keep shooting.



Don't buy a lens for a body you might have someday, buy one for the one you have now. Any of the higher quality EF-S lenses, like the 17-55, 15-85, 10-22, and 60 macro; all hold their value well. If you buy used, and it sounds like that's the budget range you're working with, you'll probably get back what you paid for them anyhow.


----------



## Pi (Oct 15, 2013)

Jixr said:


> Is the 17-55 a big drop in build quality and optics compared to an L lens that iv'e been talking about?



The "feel" is not as smooth and the zoom ring is a bit stiff. No red ring, does not look sexy. Other than that, it is as solid as the 24-105, for example. 

Optically, it is actually better than the 17-40.


----------



## Jixr (Oct 15, 2013)

I don't mind the 17-55 being crop body only. I'm pretty sure I'll never be able to afford and justify a FF body within the next few years.

I would imagine that my next body purchase would be a professional level crop anyway ( like how the 60d/7d are now ) and my T3i is still very new so I don't expect to upgrade bodies for at least two years.


And I don't mind buying used either.


Though used, both lenses ( the 17-55 and the 17-40mm L ) are about the same price ( I've seen the L cheaper than the 55 ) on the local craigslist.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Oct 15, 2013)

I myself am more of a wide angle person. I highly highly recommend the canon 10-22mm. Really solid performing lens. I thought about getting the 15-85 but it's too much overlap for me.


----------



## thismercifulfate (Oct 15, 2013)

I have that same fisheye lens and it's fantastic. Here's some pics I took with that 'toy' lens:











It's got a learning curve to it, and the only thing preventing my shots that I take with it coming out better are my own skills, not the lens.

I also own the 40mm pancake and it's also a very nice lens. Don't write your lenses off because they don't have a red ring or cost 4 figures. Even your kit lens can produce some nice pictures. Here are a few I took with the same kit lens:


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 15, 2013)

Consider the new sigma 18-35 f1.8 Art lens
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/18-35mm-f18-dc-hsm-art

your 50 f1.8 is quite good at around f2.2 its pretty sharp and the 40mm is excellent

then if you want something a bit longer the 85 f1.8 is very good bang for buck

I also think the 15-85 would be an awesome option i got this lens for my parents on their T3i i'd take it over the 17-55
if you want fast aperture the sigma has an extra stop over this lens


----------



## e17paul (Oct 15, 2013)

Jixr said:


> Out of all the lens's I always find myself going for the 40mm as its the widest I have ( aside from the kit lens which I rarely use ) I always find myself having to step back to get the shot I want, so i've been finding myself being a big fan of wide angle lens's.



40mm is pretty long when used on a Rebel, and becomes only slightly wide on film and full frame. A 24mm or 28mm lens would give you a wider field of view, and need not cost a fortune. I'm reading between the lines that you are naturally drawn to prime lenses, even though you have both zoom and prime lenses in your kit. 

There are 3 24mm options from Canon, 2 of them on my own wish list:

24/2.8 - discontinued, but still available new if you hunt around. I know from my 15/2.8 and 50/2.5 that these old design lenses have much better build than the 50/1.8 mk2, but far short of an L lens. If manual focus is important to you, there is a depth of field scale, a pretty good focus ring, but no instant override when in AF.

24/2.8 IS - As above but with instant focus override when in AF, quiet USM AF, and IS. Build quality reportedly not far short of an L lens, but no weatherproofing. Twice the price of its predecessor above, but less than half the price of a 24L

24/1.4L mk2 - This is definitely one that I'm saving up for: far more selective focus than the other 24s, reportedly better manual focus and colour rendition. It's a lot of money.

If anyone has owned both the 24 IS and the 24L, I would be interested to hear the comparison. At 28mm, there are equivalent 28/2.8 and 28/2.8 IS options, but no L. There is a 28/1.8, which I'm considering as a cut price lightweight alternative to the 24/1.4L


----------



## scottkinfw (Oct 15, 2013)

Go for a quality lens.

You don't like to carry lenses so get one good one that will last you. When you fall into some money, then think about some L's and maybe a new body- but later.

sek


----------



## J.R. (Oct 15, 2013)

I'd vote for the 15-85. It is a great lens.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Oct 15, 2013)

J.R. said:


> I'd vote for the 15-85. It is a great lens.



Heard good things about it too, and with great versatility... My main question would be, are you planning on moving to FF soon? That might be the only reason for the 17-40....


----------



## J.R. (Oct 15, 2013)

adhocphotographer said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > I'd vote for the 15-85. It is a great lens.
> ...



Going FF soon... That exactly was my consideration when I got the 17-40 as a general purpose zoom in the 7D. Personally, it didn't work out as I had expected. The 17-40 is f/4 and without IS. Given the slow aperture and lack of IS, I was forced to use high ISO as a result of which the IQ suffered considerably. When I did go FF, I didn't really like the IQ of the 17-40 with the mushy corners at anything wider than f/8. Now, both the 7D as well as the 17-40 are gone. 

In hindsight, I feel I would have been better getting the EF-S 17-55. My images would have certainly been better.


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 15, 2013)

J.R. said:


> adhocphotographer said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



The 50mm and the 40mm aren't actually crap. That said, if I were in your shoes, I'd go for a 24mm or 28mm. The IS USM version had very good reviews albeit expensive. I'd keep the 50 or 40 depending on your preference, get a 24 then get a 70-200/300 L and finally get the FF. Actually I'm in the same shoes as you are though I'm moving FF next week.  I'll get a 6D with 17-40. I'll give my dad my 500D + 18-55 + 55-250. So my lineup would be 6D + 28mm + 50mm + 17-40 + 100mm. Later on, I plan to get a 70-300L and a Tamron 24-70 VC or a Canon 24-70 (though I'm leaning on the Tamron due to price and IS). Well, it's really up to you. The 50mm is so cheap that selling it seems not worth it. I'd rather keep it as a backup lens/cheap walkaround lens. You can also reverse it and use it as a macro if you want.


----------



## e17paul (Oct 15, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> The 50mm and the 40mm aren't actually crap. That said, if I were in your shoes, I'd go for a 24mm or 28mm. The IS USM version had very good reviews albeit expensive. I'd keep the 50 or 40 depending on your preference, get a 24 then get a 70-200/300 L and finally get the FF.



+1
The 24 or 28 would complement the 40 & 50 well as a set of wide and standard primes. That's essentially the set I'm looking to build up, so I can leave behind the 19-35 Vivitar.



Jixr said:


> I don't mind the 17-55 being crop body only. I'm pretty sure I'll never be able to afford and justify a FF body within the next few years.
> 
> I would imagine that my next body purchase would be a professional level crop anyway ( like how the 60d/7d are now ) and my T3i is still very new so I don't expect to upgrade bodies for at least two years.
> 
> ...



The price of full frame (new) has tumbled in recent years, and has further to fall. Electronics (e.g sensor design) advances far faster than optics, so you may well find that full frame is in reach within a few years. I'm predicting a full frame camera at 7D or 70D prices within the next 3 to 5 years. If you have mainly EF (not EF-S) lenses, that will give you the ability to get a FF body without having to invest in new lenses at the same time.

On the other hand, I have seen the original 5D used with some warranty in camera shops for £500. I'm resigned to the fact my 6D will depreciate similarly over the next 5 years. When the 5D4 and 6D2 come along in two or three years time, the used market may be flooded by those feelimg the need to upgrade.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 15, 2013)

e17paul said:


> The price of full frame (new) has tumbled in recent years, and has further to fall. Electronics (e.g sensor design) advances far faster than optics, so you may well find that full frame is in reach within a few years. I'm predicting a full frame camera at 7D or 70D prices within the next 3 to 5 years. If you have mainly EF (not EF-S) lenses, that will give you the ability to get a FF body without having to invest in new lenses at the same time.



3 to 5 years is a longish time horizon to be buying in cameras so it always is better to buy what serves the purpose right now. Buying lenses that accentuate the problems of the APS-C sensor is not a very good decision. There is no point in buying a lens planning for FF when you know that the IQ is going to be poorer.

If you are buying the 24-70 II, 70-200 II or the great whites, sure it is a better idea to get those lenses, even for the APS-C. But anything that is a compromise in the first place (I'm sorry 17-40 users but that is what I feel) the chances of disappointment are high.


----------



## TrabimanUK (Oct 15, 2013)

I picked up a 5D in nearly new condition, with 1-owner from new and just over 9000 shutter actuations from Gumtree for £300 last week (checked the number in front of me on a PC). 

Look around, as there are bargains to be had! With Gumtree or a shop, you can at least try the camera before parting with your cash, unlike Ebay or Amazon


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 15, 2013)

the way I do the math, you have about 560 in lens re sale value. big value occasionally sells the 24-105 for 660... which is s solids performing lens.

I always used my better glass because I didn't want to have a bad picture due to gear.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 15, 2013)

If you don't care for video, later on I'd get a 5Dc too. Their cheap as chips now but I'm afraid once you try FF, you'll look at that rebel in Disgust. If you plan to move into a 5Dc then use the 17-40 until then but FF isn't that expensive anymore.


----------



## Jixr (Oct 15, 2013)

yeah, I was running the math as well, I figured if I picked up a nice lens now, I could sell off the rest of mine, and come out without too much cash in pocket.

The only thing keeping me from getting a nice lens right now is my phone is busted ( ip4 ) it mostly works, but have to use speaker phone and all these other little ticks and a replacement phone is as much as a lens


----------



## David_in_Seattle (Oct 15, 2013)

Jixr said:


> well, after reading the above I do suppose the 17-55 2.8 is the better value and allows me more range.
> 
> 
> I have tried out the 70-200mm, and I'll get one eventually, but I rarely use that focal lenth.
> ...



I have the 17-55 f2.8 IS lens and use it on my 60D and 70D. Optically, it's on par with the version 1, 24-70 F2.8 L. But build quality is just average as the lens is not weather sealed (even with a lens filter attached). I'm a travel photographer and many of my photos are taken in varying weather conditions. If you find yourself in humid areas or in stormy weather then you'll have to be extra cautious with the 17-55 f2.8 IS. I've broken 2 of them due to water damage...zooming in and out with the lens tends to suck in moisture. A simple precaution is to cover the lens & camera in a plastic drawstring bag.

With that in mind, I also have the 24-70 f2.8 v2 and the 24-105 f4 IS that I use on my 5Dmk3. Both are weather sealed when used with a filter and are very reliable lenses. Though 24mm on a cropped sensor camera is probably not wide enough for your use case...


----------



## Ripley (Oct 15, 2013)

Based on your OP, you want to go wider and have everything in one lense. The question is how much wider, and how much length are you willing to do without. Based on your budget, it's the 17-40mm or the 24-105mm which have comparable IQ on your camera. If I were you I would get one of those two and sell off everything else except the 40mm.

Start there and worry about improving IQ later, as that warrants a venture into FF.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 15, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> The 50mm and the 40mm aren't actually crap.



The 50F1.8 is the lowest cost lens that Canon makes. It has a horrible plastic feel to it and you just know that it is not made from quality materials.... and it is very sharp and takes great pictures... If you look at the image quality for the price, no other lens comes close. DXO rates it as a better lens than the 600F4.... we know the rating criteria is flawed, but still, that's hard to ignore!


----------



## Jixr (Oct 15, 2013)

not sure where that came from but I never said the 40 and 50 were crap.


----------



## Jixr (Oct 15, 2013)

I have an offer for a used 17-40mm for my 40 and some cash. ($530 )

I went to the camera store today and tried the 17-40 f4 L and I really liked it.


I'm really thinking about taking the offer, as I really liked the range it gave me on the crop body.

should I go for it?


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 15, 2013)

Jixr said:


> I have an offer for a used 17-40mm for my 40 and some cash. ($530 )
> 
> I went to the camera store today and tried the 17-40 f4 L and I really liked it.
> 
> ...



All the best advice was on the first page and this was not the scenario recommended.

However if you want to go for it. If it makes you happy and you will own an L lens then it isn't bad. I think you would enjoy it.


----------



## Jixr (Oct 15, 2013)

Well, I've not found any 17-55's used on the CL, and when I have they are practically asking new price.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 15, 2013)

Jixr said:


> Well, I've not found any 17-55's used on the CL, and when I have they are practically asking new price.



That is because it is a very good lens. You can take that as a good indication.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 15, 2013)

Jixr said:


> Hi everyone, Here is my delema.
> 
> I'm currently thinking about selling off my lens collection and trying to get myself an L lens.
> 
> ...



If it were me, I'd sell the camera, and all the lenses. If not all the lenses, then at least the fisheye and the Canon 50mm f/1.8, and maybe get a good copy of the Sigma 17-70 OS zoom...or else a good copy of the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (depending on if you prefer to shoot really wide, or not). Notice I say "good copy", as in one that isn't decentered, and that can autofocus accurately. Difficult to do even if your camera has AFMA, as my 50D did...probably impossible to do without it (which is why I'd sell the rebel).

Not necessarily saying you should sell the 40 pancake...I love mine. But I still might sell it someday. Its colors are very muted, but at least they aren't too cool or too warm. Contrast and sharpness are very high. 

Frankly from my perspective, the whole entry level DSLR range seems more like a waste of money now. Crazy as it sounds, my little SX150IS can take decent enough pictures (when I'm not using my 6D)...and the SX150 only cost $145. Sure they're only jpegs, but they are quite usable, 14 MP. I've even printed 16x20's from it, and they are quite sharp. Its image stabilization works incredibly well, and is every bit of 4 stops at the tele end (which is FF equivalent to 300mm). Quite a lot of bang for the buck.

The Nikon P7700 looks like a very capable compact camera. I owned the P7000 for a year, liked it a lot. Sold it for like $30 less than I paid for it, new. The P7700 has a much faster aperture lens now, and might have faster functionality (which isn't saying much, but would be an improvement). And these little Nikons shoot RAW... 

I might also consider a micro 4/3 or other compact format, if I wanted to spend more. But they're kind of a waste of money, in my opinion.

Either way if you're wanting to buy new, consider buying on the weekend before Thanksgiving (mid November)...or else later during the holiday season. Such as from Amazon, etc...


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 16, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> If you don't care for video, later on I'd get a 5Dc too. Their cheap as chips now but I'm afraid once you try FF, you'll look at that rebel in Disgust. If you plan to move into a 5Dc then use the 17-40 until then but FF isn't that expensive anymore.



+1. A 5Dc is a good FF camera to get your feet wet with. My only problem with it is the live-view. That's the reason I targeted the 5D2 but went for a 6D eventually due to little price difference. If I'm going to start today, 5Dc would be my choice. It'll still be a good backup camera should I want a better FF.


----------



## Jixr (Oct 16, 2013)

I Think some of you guys are getting the OP ( me, Jixr) mixed up with another user on the post about going FF.

I currently have no intention of upgrading my t3i any time soon.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 16, 2013)

Jixr said:


> I Think some of you guys are getting the OP ( me, Jixr) mixed up with another user on the post about going FF.
> 
> I currently have no intention of upgrading my t3i any time soon.



yeah, people like to go off the board. I do that sometimes, but I'm not that fond of full frame as the panacea to all your ills.


----------



## sjschall (Oct 16, 2013)

Tamron's 17-50 2.8 is also noteworthy. I think it'd be a solid upgrade from what you currently have, for not too much investment.


----------



## andersde (Oct 16, 2013)

If you've no intention of going FF then i'd rule out the 17-40 and 24-105 as there are better options for crop. 

The sigma 18-35 will be better indoors than then above lens. Given you say you shoot mainly indoors this could be a great lens for you. You can keep your 40 & 50 mm primes if you need a touch longer and eventually get a 70-200.

Next, would be the 17-55 2.8. Wider range but not as fast. Still another good option though.

Last, the 15-85. Great for outdoors and much wider range than above but you'd want to pair it with a flash for indoor use. Went this route myself and am very happy with it . Makes a great 1 lens option if you dont mind adding a flash.


----------

