Canon 17-55 or 24-70? I have a rebel xsi and currently use the 18-55 kit lens but also purchased the 70-200 2.8. I use the 70-200 to shoot my son's football games and absolutely love it! I became the team photographer and created a website for the parents. I am still completely an amatuer but I have always loved photography. Now, I find when taking indoor pictures during my son's wrestling matches or school plays I want to use the 70-200 lens because of the 2.8 but of course I am too close in many instances to get the picture I want. Thus, I am looking at the wider angle lenses but am at a loss as to which one. Any suggestions or tips? Thank you. Canon 17-55 or 24-70? I have a rebel xsi and currently use the 18-55 kit lens but also purchased the 70-200 2.8. I use the 70-200 to shoot my son's football games and absolutely love it! I... » Read More Canon 17-55 or 24-70? I have a rebel xsi and currently use the 18-55 kit lens but also purchased the 70-200 2.8. I use the 70-200 to shoot my son's football games and absolutely love it! I became the team photographer and created a website for the parents. I am still completely an amatuer but I have always loved photography. Now, I find when taking indoor pictures during my son's wrestling matches or school plays I want to use the 70-200 lens because of the 2.8 but of course I am too close in many instances to get the picture I want. Thus, I am looking at the wider angle lenses but am at a loss as to which one. Any suggestions or tips? Thank you. « Show Less
1463261
Did you ever get a lens? I'm making the same decision now. If so, what did you buy? Are you happy with your decision? Is there anything else you would add that would help me make a decision. Thanks!
1463262
how does it do in small spaces. We cruise some and it's difficult if not impossible to take a good picture inside our cabin. With my fixed 55 if i aim my picture on the door knob 5 feet away, i get the door knob and a little of the door. would this lense be able to get the whole door?
861799
What is the size of your image sensor? If it's an APS-C size like EOS 400D, the 70-200 may be a bit long? If it's regular Canon digital like EOS-1D or full frame like the 5D it will be just right. 24-70 is handy if you have two or more or if you shoot your portraits loose. 70-200 if you like to shoot tight. Have you considered the 100mm or 135mm f/2.0 prime lenses (to throw distracting backgrounds out of focus?"
1192318
I am extremely pleased with my 18-140. I do not own the 18-200, but I have handled it. The 18-140 is a bit lighter, and handles a bit quicker. It is sharper than my 18-105, especially at the wider focal lengths, where most pictures are taken.
1401677
If I had a choice of the 70D or the T4i, I would definitely get the 70D. It is a much better camera. As a beginner, upgrading to a D-SLR is a big step with a learning curve, but the 70D is user friendly and a better quality camera than the Rebels. I bought it on sale during the holidays with the 18-135mm lens kit for little more than the Rebel and am loving it! If you have the choice, go with the 70D. I have had a Rebel T1i for 5 years now, and decided that I wanted a nicer camera. This camera shoots and feels like a real camera!
1939651
For one thing you don't have the full range as the 28/300... Which is an all around lens. I would say the 70/200 being 2.8 captures great shots that you are planning for in that range, Unlike the other where the shots might be wide angle to zoom changing frequently.
608744
I think the 17-50 is 2.8 fixed with 17-70 its 2.8-4 depending on distance. I shoot weddings primarily and love the 17-70 because I get great macro shots of the ring, closeups of bouquets etc, but at the same time I can get great group shots and being between 2.8-4 I just raise ISO when Im closer to 4. But if you prefer consistent aperture and don't care for macro the 17-50 is great too.
2227376
My thought is the 18-200mm lens for this camera. It is the lens I have, and wanted. I know it's physically bigger than the 18-135, but it does alot more, with that extra zoom. (11x vs 7.5x) The 18mm is equiv to a 27mm wide angle lens in 35mm film specs. The 200 gives it the 11x zoom function. A very versital and desirable lens.
2240579
Okay...I'll give you the details but I'm just a novice that likes to take pictures. The colors with the 17-40 are rich and beautiful....the lens is sharp and the photos have a "pop" to them, but when the light gets low the 17-40 has a hard time. Outside with good lighting the 17-40 is hard to beat. I use the 17-55 inside or when the lighting is low. It's sharp and fast. If I had to choose only one it would be the 17-55 because it is a faster lens...f2.8.
496027
I understand your situation, but for shooting indoor sports the wider aperture is the way to go. Save up for the 200mm telephoto. It's a great lens and considerably less expensive than something like a 70-200 IS ii.
759242
If anyone is interested I have a 24-70L 2.8 Canon Lens. I only use it about 5 times total. 6 weeks after I bought it I purchase the 24-105 IS Canon Lens because I shoot mostly Wedding & Party's. The 24-105 IS works much better for the type of photography I do. I would sell it for $900.00 and include the B&W; UV Filter which is the top of the line brand filter which is made in Germany. Plus $25.00 for shipping. You can email me at rjgphoto@sbcglobal.net if anyone is interested.
424364
Jeryl, the Xsi's 9 point focusing system and 17% faster shooting speeds (over twice as fast for RAW) should prove very useful for sports shooters. I have to warn you though that you're eventually going to want a "fast" (i.e., wide aperture) telephoto for dimly lit games and these can be more expensive than the camera itself.
1268003
Thanks sooo much....with the 55-200 will I be able to get shots of my son on the pitching mound and dauqhter in goal....the little kodack I have has 12x zoom.....does the additional lens compare to that in zooming capabilites.....Thanks so much for all your help....I will go through B&H; photo to order...thanks for finding this for me!!!
1337629
Image quality between the 24-70 and 28-75 is leaps and bounds. The 24-70 is just as sharp as Canons 24-70 version. Not to mention having VC. Definitely worth it if you have the money. I owned the 28-75 and it was a great lens for what is was but the 24-70 is such a step up in my opinion. Cheers
1413084
You lose very little with this lens vds 70-200. The gain is the extra reach and wide angle, it a major upgrade. Having said that , and given the high $$$, I'd wait for the new model. New Model? I suspect so. Everyone, including Canon, is 'out-of-stock'. Couple that with Canon's receent announcment (July 2009) that they have a new IS that will be in 'interchangable' lenses by the end of 2009, it is not a surprise they stopped producing the 28-300mm so they could clear out the stock.I use the XTi- 40D and now the 5D mark II. The glass makes the picture.
1922083
The 50 is probably more often referred to as a "standard" lens and works great. The 35 is slightly wider and often used for portraits of more than just one person (when you need to fit more people in the frame). Keep in mind that if you have a camera with an ASP-C sensor (or a "crop sensor"-- this is the Rebel line of Canon canons as well as the 7D, etc), the 50mm is closer to a (1.6 x 50 =) 80mm due to the smaller sensor and a 35 looks closer to a (35 x 1.6=) 56mm lens. What I would suggest before dropping a lot of money on the 35L or 50L is to see what range you use more or what looks better on your camera. Most Canon cameras come with an 18-55 or 24-105 lens. Zoom that lens to the 35mm mark and use that for a day and see how it works. Then do the same thing with the lens at the 50mm mark. If you find that 50 is too narrow or 35 is too wide, there is no sense in dropping $1000+ on a focal length you aren't likely to use.
2170939
I own both lenses for the last three months. Initially had the 17-40mm on my XSi but after a couple weeks of frequent use of my camera i switched to the 10-22mm. Found the lense according to pics i was taking to be of more use to me than the 17-40mm. I guess what Bauista said is right, it all depends if you will go full frame in the future or not!!! Also the type of pictures you are taking is an important factor!! Both lenses are great but i think that 10-22mm is a bit ahead of the 17-40mm especially when you have a 1.6crop camera.Their prices vary, i bought through time both my lenses around $650!!! I own both lenses for the last three months. Initially had the 17-40mm on my XSi but after a couple weeks of frequent use of my camera i switched to the 10-22mm. Found the lense according to pics i was taking to be of more use to me than the 17-40mm. I guess what Bauista said is right, it all depends if you will go full frame in the future or not!!! Also the type of pictures you are taking is an important factor!! Both lenses are great but i think that 10-22mm is a bit ahead of the 17-40mm especially when you have a 1.6crop camera.Their prices vary, i bought through time both my... » Read More I own both lenses for the last three months. Initially had the 17-40mm on my XSi but after a couple weeks of frequent use of my camera i switched to the 10-22mm. Found the lense according to pics i was taking to be of more use to me than the 17-40mm. I guess what Bauista said is right, it all depends if you will go full frame in the future or not!!! Also the type of pictures you are taking is an important factor!! Both lenses are great but i think that 10-22mm is a bit ahead of the 17-40mm especially when you have a 1.6crop camera.Their prices vary, i bought through time both my lenses around $650!!! « Show Less
1784428
I use my 24-70 for just about everthing, it is a great lens. I have done portraits, events, weddings and my own stuff while on vacations. Your only other real alternatives are primes. (85mm, 50mm and the 70-200mm) The pics come out of the 24-70 really sharp, the bokeh is great and the contrast is really eye opening if you have metered your shots correctly... Hope this helps..Phil