Here we go again... which camera/lens combo? :-)

[Photog]

Those look like great choices. The gap from 55mm to 70mm, between the lenses, would bother some people; but you may never notice. You do realize that the two lenses alone, are more than your posted budget? Typical.:Wow1: Happens to me every time.

They will both work well in low light, with the f2.8 aperture.

Do you plan on using a tripod, with the 70-200mm lens? If so, you may not need the IS. Some folks can't work without it. None of my lenses are IS; but my wife has all VR (Nikon) lenses, and they do help in certain situations. If you don't have to have IS, you can save some $$ and still have a top quality lens.

I think your kit is coming along nicely.

Now, what bag, pack or case are you going to keep them in? I know one professional photographer that uses a modified diaper bag. I guess nobody wants to steal a diaper bag. I can't bring myself to do that; it would create self-image problems.:xxrotflma

 

[Tucson T4R]

A very slippery slope I am sliding down here. Looking at a Lowpro bag, Benbo tripod, high speed CF, couple filters, on camera flash.....

Yep, that original budget is long gone. :Wow1: Oh well, cry once.:sombrero:

 

[Photog]

Brad,
Camera bag - Are you thinking of a back pack, or something to use from the 4Runner?

Tripod - The Benbo is a tricky tripod to use (I use one for my spotting scope). They can be a little frustrating at first. The Trekker will have a hard time stabilizing the heavy lens. If you go this route, buy the bigger Benbo 2, and keep the upper extension as short as possible. Add a decent ball head too.


Filter - Don't buy a UV, or haze, or... filter to protect the lens. It is a cheap piece of glass in front of your expensive glass. Buy a good circular polarizer, and leave it on the lens all the time, unless you need to remove it for dim light. If you spend time on the beach or in a sand-blast area (windy dunes), then consider UV or clear filter, to protect the lens when you don't have the polarizer on the lens.

 

[Tucson T4R]

Brian,

Thanks agin for sharing your experience and helping with my thought process, I appreciate it. :sombrero:

Camera bag I am thinking about would be for out of the 4runner and not a backpack. Curently leaning toward Lowepro (spelling?).

I already ordered the Benbo Trekker Tripod MK3 With Ball and Socket Head and Case. It has a hanging hook so I can add weight to the set up if am using the larger lens. At least was my thought when I chose that model.

I agree on your filter lens use. I would primarily only use them in nasty conditions or when I really need the polarization.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

 

[Rallyroo]

Primary lens for landscape, night shots, and daily use. EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (not an L lens but is has great reviews on the glass and IQ)

Telephoto zoom for sporting events and wildlife use - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

My road trip set up consists of:
12-24/4 DX (for the landscape shots)
17-55/2.8 DX
70-200/2.8

I make do with the gap between 55-70mm. And when I want to go lightweight (backpacking) I may use the kit lens 18-70/3.5-4.5 and perhaps toss in the wide 12-24/4 DX.

 

[Zorro]

Just to make sure my point didn't get forgotten in the big thread ... watch out with that 17-55. Try it out before you buy. The one I tried was godawful and made me very glad I didn't buy it.
Besides, 17mm isn't enough (IMO) for landscapery ...

 

[Photog]

Good point Zorro. Check them out before purchasing. Take the laptop to the camera shop, or pawn shop, or private, etc. Shoot at wide medium & closed aperture. Test the zoom and focus (auto & manual) smoothness. If it is an "IS" lens, shoot with it switched on & off, and compare pics.

Set up a series of pics, with those adjustments, print a check list out, and take it with you. Then just put the lens on, shoot each item on the list, marking the file number for each test. Then stick the card in the computer, and check each one.

If you do this with the 70-200mm 2.8 L and the others, you will definitely see the differences in image quality. The 70-200mm "L" is thought to be Canon's sharpest zoom lens.

Used lens considerations:

Summertime heat can have negative effects on lenses. They have a little grease/oil in the moving parts. The heat can cause this liquify and drip or run to the lowest point. Without lube, some of the parts may not respond properly. The aperture may not move quickly, and will cause vignetting or exposure issues. You don't want to see dust inside the lens, where you can not clean it.

But:
Lenses can be sent in for a clean and tune. It just adds to the price; but they can be like new again. Last time I sent mine in the cost was $100 per lens. If you can save $500 off of list, and spend $100 for a clean & tune, you are still ahead.

 

[nwoods]

Just to make sure my point didn't get forgotten in the big thread ... watch out with that 17-55. Try it out before you buy. The one I tried was godawful and made me very glad I didn't buy it.
Besides, 17mm isn't enough (IMO) for landscapery ...

I agree 100%. I was asked this similar question offline. My response might be pertinent here as well:

Originally Posted by (name withheld)
Hello,

I thought I read somewhere on here that you had this lens and liked it with the exception of the dust infiltration and you sent it in to be cleaned and serviced. If you don't mind me asking, how much was it to have canon service it? I'm in the market for a wide angle lens and had the 17-40 f/4L and would like something new.

Thanks for any feedback,

Yes, I had lots of dust problems with the 17-55, but the lens you might be thinking of EF-S 17-85 which is a bit nicer lens, but still not that impressive and susceptible to dust. I cannot recall how much it cost to renew it. My most recent lens service was $800, but that was because I dropped my precious 70-200mm F2.8 L off a cliff and it needed lots of repair

Generally speaking, I was very disappointed with both "kit" lenses that came with the 20D (the 17-55 or the 17-85). The lens is plastic, and the image quality was marginal.

I LOVE my Canon 16-35mm F2.8 L Mk II. This is a fantastic lens, but quite expensive. It is TOUGH. I have slammed this baby into the rocks, I drag it along on every off road trip, and it still takes awesome photos.

Another very FUN wide lens is the much less expensive, but more limited in usefulness, 10-22mm lens. Here is a link to some of the images this lens can take. It's really terrific.

At the moment, my lineup is:
- 16-35mm F2.8 L Mk II (daily walkabout lens)
- 10-22mm EF-S ultra wide angle for fun & vistas
- 70-200mm F2.8 L zoom for great detail shots, portraits, distant objects, etc... It's my sharpest lens by far, but the 16-35 is not far behind.
I also have a NiftyFifty, but never seem to use it.

A decent lens that I no longer have because the 16-35 is so good is the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8. It was not very much money and very sharp, but it rotates the opposite of my Canon lenses which drove me crazy, and the 16-35 is so good I just didn't use it much, so I sold it.

 

[Photog]

Great first hand info NWOODS.

I have been lusting for a new wide angle lens, and your post will be very helpful.

It is difficult to keep dust out of a lens, when they get longer/shorter as they zoom in/out. The 70-200mm f2.8 L stays tightly closed, and does not change length with zoom. My 24-70mm f2.8 L, does extend during zoom, and picks up a bit of dust. The way they seal the tubes makes a difference too. The "L" lenses have better dust seals than the lower-line lenses.

 

[Tucson T4R]

Thanks for all the great input guys. I understand the dust concern on the Canon 17-55 2.8 lens. I actually ordered all my lenses and accessories yesterday so I guess I just have to see what my experience is. The lens had 278 reviews at this site:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=303&sort=7&cat=27&page=3 with an overall rating of 9.1.

As you mentioned there were several folks that reported the dust problems but others that have been using this lens for 2 years with no dust infiltration. The other primary negative was the perceived build quality compared to L series lenses. But the optics and IQ were highly rated.

I'll let the order stand and give you guys some feedback once I have some experience to report back. If I am disappointed, I can sell the lens and replace it with something else down the road.

I thought about modifying the order for a different lens but I really wanted the F2.8 and the IS which was not available in the L series lens in the same focal range.

I pick up the 50D on Friday so this weekend I should be able to start playing with my new toys. :elkgrin:

 

[Rob O]

Yes, I had lots of dust problems with the 17-55, but the lens you might be thinking of EF-S 17-85 which is a bit nicer lens, but still not that impressive and susceptible to dust. I cannot recall how much it cost to renew it. My most recent lens service was $800, but that was because I dropped my precious 70-200mm F2.8 L off a cliff and it needed lots of repair

Generally speaking, I was very disappointed with both "kit" lenses that came with the 20D (the 17-55 or the 17-85). The lens is plastic, and the image quality was marginal.

Nathan ... I think you might be confusing the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS with the kit lens, which is an EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 (now with IS in it's latest Mk II iteration). The kit lens is as basic as it gets; suitable for beginners to start out with but not great. The 17-55 f/2.8 on the other hand is a superb piece of glass. IQ is outstanding and it's often cited as "L glass without the red ring or price."

The EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS is a very good lens for the money, if a bit slow. I used one for a couple years when first starting out with DSLR kit. The range is perfect for crop bodies and IQ excellent (assuming the light is right). It's not as consistently good (read sharp) as L glass nor nearly as well made ... but a great value. And it suffers from the dust problem (as mine did), although it doesn't effect image quality in the least.

I LOVE my Canon 16-35mm F2.8 L Mk II. This is a fantastic lens, but quite expensive. It is TOUGH. I have slammed this baby into the rocks, I drag it along on every off road trip, and it still takes awesome photos.

That's the UWA glass I'll be getting for my 5D II ... effectively replacing the (outstanding) Tokina 12-24 f/4 I've been using on my crop bodies. Expensive upgrade, but worth it.

 

[Zorro]

The 17-55 f/2.8 on the other hand is a superb piece of glass. IQ is outstanding and it's often cited as "L glass without the red ring or price."

That's true. As much as using it made me want to slit my wrists, the image quality was great. I was too upset about the uneven effort to zoom in or out to notice at the time ... hahaha

 

[Tucson T4R]

That's true. As much as using it made me want to slit my wrists, the image quality was great. I was too upset about the uneven effort to zoom in or out to notice at the time ... hahaha

Well, get the bandages ready. I'll let ya know if it motivates me to draw my blade. :sombrero:

 

[Tucson T4R]

This weekend I will get my first chance to get out and practice in the back country. In the mean time, here are a few shots I have taken around the house.

So far I'm very happy with both lenses and the camera. The new 17-55 2.8 lens has a smooth feel to the zoom, so hopefully it will stay that way. The IQ of both lenses is exceptional. Now all I have to do is grow my skills so I can take advantage of the camera and lens capabilities.:elkgrin:

These downsized JPG images for the web don't come close to the quality I see in the RAW images. It was an eye opening experience for me to see for the first time the quality and controls when working with RAW.

Test shots from the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS:

This one, the focus is not as crisp as it should have been. User error.

Test shots from the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS

 

[Photog]

Use another camera, and post a picture of all your new gear.

Nice little bunch of test pics.