PJ Lens Question

[gregkendallball]

I posted this at POTN, and over in the PJ thread here, but it wasn't getting much action. I thought I would post it here and see what happened. Mods, please delete if necessary:

=======


I think most of my posts here have been about which lenses to buy, or sell, or trade for.

I have a 40D and a 30D, and a 70-200mm 2.8 IS, a 17-40 4L and a 50mm 1.4.

I've begun doing more freelance PJ work for my local paper, and I've noticed a lot of times, especially indoors, the 17-40 isn't fast enough, and the 50mm, while fast, isn't wide enough.

So, I'm thinking the 17-55 2.8 IS is perfect...right?

I could sell the two that I mentioned to fund the 17-55, and it seems like the one lens would give me what I need....constant 2.8 and IS from 17-200 (with just a little from 55-70 missing). Plus, it would work outdoors as well, where the 17-40 really shines.

Advice, thoughts, ridicules?

Thanks for the feedback...

[Wes]

Have you thought about going with something like a Mark III? Bump the ISO up and your 17-40 would probably be fine. Just a thought.

[gregkendallball]

Wes,
I'd love that solution, but at this point, it's not feasible at all. I have to sell these two lenses just to get the funds for the 17-55. The part-time freelance work just doesn't pay enough to justify the $4200 expense....

At least not until the paper is willing to buy equipment for me to use!

[kronos2818]

Originally Posted by gregkendallball

I posted this at POTN, and over in the PJ thread here, but it wasn't getting much action. I thought I would post it here and see what happened. Mods, please delete if necessary:

=======


I think most of my posts here have been about which lenses to buy, or sell, or trade for.

I have a 40D and a 30D, and a 70-200mm 2.8 IS, a 17-40 4L and a 50mm 1.4.

I've begun doing more freelance PJ work for my local paper, and I've noticed a lot of times, especially indoors, the 17-40 isn't fast enough, and the 50mm, while fast, isn't wide enough.

So, I'm thinking the 17-55 2.8 IS is perfect...right?

I could sell the two that I mentioned to fund the 17-55, and it seems like the one lens would give me what I need....constant 2.8 and IS from 17-200 (with just a little from 55-70 missing). Plus, it would work outdoors as well, where the 17-40 really shines.

Advice, thoughts, ridicules?

Thanks for the feedback...

That 17-55mm IS is good for what you are plainning. Let me throw a lens at you. I do weddings alot so I shoot in dim lighted rooms and what works great for me is the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L it cover a good range and constant F2.8 and an L class glass lens. Just a thought. OOHH and it is not a small sencer lens so if you do jump to a full fram camera it goes with you. And it cost around the same a the 17-55 well it does here where I buy my stuff.

[gregkendallball]

Kronos,
I actually owned a 24-70 for a few months, and while I loved it, it just wasn't wide enough on a cropped sensor. 38mm or so just wasn't giving me what I needed.

Of course, if I had a 5D, that lens would be just perfect...and maybe someday that'll be the case. As it stands, I'm about to have a spending freeze put in place for 2 years (my wife is going back to school), so the only money I have available is what I've put into the other two lenses.

Thanks for the advice, though.

[kronos2818]

Originally Posted by gregkendallball

Kronos,
I actually owned a 24-70 for a few months, and while I loved it, it just wasn't wide enough on a cropped sensor. 38mm or so just wasn't giving me what I needed.

Of course, if I had a 5D, that lens would be just perfect...and maybe someday that'll be the case. As it stands, I'm about to have a spending freeze put in place for 2 years (my wife is going back to school), so the only money I have available is what I've put into the other two lenses.

Thanks for the advice, though.

Well the 17-55mm should do well for you...

[dbphotos]

I used to use a 24-70 until I purchased the 17-55 and now I haven't changed that lens. 17-55 will give you the wide coverage you will find yourself wanting w/out having to change lenses and you definitely want to stay with f/2.8. If you keep a 17-55 f/2.8 on 1 body and a 70-200 f/2.8 on another I think you will find that you won't need to change lenses 90% of the time.

My .02 cents.

[gregkendallball]

Thanks DB,

"If you keep a 17-55 f/2.8 on 1 body and a 70-200 f/2.8 on another I think you will find that you won't need to change lenses 90% of the time."

I hope not! I wouldn't have any other lenses to swap them with!!!

[toverman]

This won't be popular here at Buy Something Expensive Land, but I recommend you keep what you have for now and find a used 18-55 kit lens (or maybe even the newer IS version of the same). For newspaper work, photos typically appear in two places nowadays: in print, where the original quality is going to suffer just a bit and on the Web, where the photo is going to be reduced in resolution before it's uploaded. A third would be in your portfolio, but you'll want to also have clips from the actual paper in there as well. I have gotten excellent shots with the cheap 18-55 when my 50, 85 or zooms won't cut it. In low light, I'd recommend flash when possible (bounced or diffused), which might make your 17-40 more than passable.

My dream wide lens (also on a 1.6X crop) is the 16-35 f/2.8L. I'll probably opt for a 17-40 f/4L (like you have) because of the price and upgrade later.

There are times you need a wide shot to tell the story. But I find in my experience (12+ years in the newspaper biz) that a telephoto often works better. If you're too close to a subject, they might start to react to you being there, which taints the final result. Kids especially will start mugging for any nearby camera.

But all that said, if you need help funding a new lens and will let your 17-40 go for a decent price (plus shipping), I might be able to help you out!

[Donner]

A 40D isn't bad at handling higher ISOs, why not just bump the ISO a bit? It'd give you the faster shutter speed you want. As Todd said above, if it's for newspaper, the loss of quality wont matter too much since it's running on newsprint. I'd also say it's a better idea than using an 18-55 kit lens as the 17-40 will be a better lens and the difference between the apertures isn't enough wide open to give you that much faster of a shutter speed.

Unless you are really wanting to get the 17-55, i might suggest a non-L prime, like the 24 or 28 1.8s or something like that. They'd be cheap enough not to hit you hard in the pocket, fast enough to give you the speed you want, several are quality enough (especially for newsprint) to give you the results you want and would still be wider than the 50mm.

There is no perfect lens, at least not one that is going to be an L, fast, sharp and cheap. But, if you are really wanting the 17-55 then get it, otherwise nothing will live up to your expectations and you'll spend more money in the long run working up to the 17-55.

[lhdvies]

Hi Greg, I have the 40D and the 17-55 2.8 IS & find it to be a great combo! Add that 4th generation IS to the consant 2.8 and you can get some really slow shutter speeds (as long as the subject is not moving of course). I'm very inpressed with it.

[JPalmer]

It's not about the quality when shooting indoors he's worried about folks. The F4 lens isn't fast enough... which means that he can't get his shutter speed fast enough to stop whatever action he's looking for and still have a wide enough angle to work with.

Trust me.... nobody on here knows that newsprint is toilet paper for photos better than me, but that's not an excuse to not have a action photo with the right shutter speed to freeze the action.

I say, get the 17-55 if you can, it's the lens i use more than anything else on a daily basis.

[bfmpa]

You can never be too rich, too thin, or have a lens that is too "fast". I recently got a Tamron 17-50 2.8 that is very sharp. You can pick one up for under $400 if you keep your eyes open. And it's a pretty decent macro lens.