A&P thinking about getting rid of the lenses i have to get a couple others

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by tetsuo, Oct 29, 2008.

  1. tetsuo

    tetsuo And shepherds we shall be...

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    9,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    currently, i have a 30d with a 28-75 and a 50 1.4. i went with the 28-75 because i was thinking i would get an uwa and a telephoto lens to go with it and i'd be set. well, my finances haven't allowed that, and i keep finding myself wanting something wider than 28. so i've been thinking about selling the 28-75 to get a 17-50, and then selling the 50 1.4 to get an 85 1.8. primarily, i take photos of my kids, and i just use the 50 1.4 for that but i think i'd rather have a bit more length than the 50. how is the focus on the 17-50, faster or slower than my 28-75? how does the 85 1.8 compare to the 50 1.4? anyone have any thoughts or suggestions?
     
  2. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,131
    Likes Received:
    89
    Location:
    east coast
    Can't help you much with your decision but I've heard nothing but praise for the 85. I'd love to pick up one myself.
     
  3. isaac86hatch

    isaac86hatch This thread sucks

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    27,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    The 17-50 is faster but just as loud. the 50 and 85 are IMO about the same speed and sharpness, just different FLs.
     
  4. Valence

    Valence Gustav Refugee

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    12,878
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Texas
    How much for the 28 to 75?
     
  5. the Rosswog

    the Rosswog OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,199
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    85 is a great lens, but too long on a 30d. you have to be a good distance away from things you want to photograph.

    keep your 50.
     
  6. the Rosswog

    the Rosswog OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Messages:
    5,199
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    also, if you want ultra wide angle, skip the 17-55 and go straight to the 10-22.

    17mm is about a 28mm equivalent in full frame. not very wide, and you'll find yourself in the same predicament (wanting more angle of view).
     
  7. tetsuo

    tetsuo And shepherds we shall be...

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    9,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    i wish i could get an uwa, but if i were doing that, i'd want to keep my 28-75. if i keep it i can't afford to spend that much money on another lens right now. i think that the 17-50 would just be a better option for me until i can afford to spend the kind of money that it takes to have a complete set of lenses. :o
     
  8. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    what do you shoot? Do you need teh fast ap?

    I would say get a 17-85 IS 4-5.6, and keep the 50 1.4
     
  9. tetsuo

    tetsuo And shepherds we shall be...

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    9,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    focusing faster would be great. the noise sucks, but i can't afford anything better than that right now :o

    i'm finding that the 50 is too short. 95%+ of the photos i take are of my kids, and i really would rather have the 70-200 for portraits of them (again, the money side kills that one).
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2008
  10. tetsuo

    tetsuo And shepherds we shall be...

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    9,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    mainly, i shoot portraits of my kids (and a lot of them are natural light), so the fast ap helps with that and helping them stand out from the background.
     
  11. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    hmmmm.... sounds like you should go with the 17-50 2.8 and 50 1.4 combo.
     
  12. tetsuo

    tetsuo And shepherds we shall be...

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    9,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    you would pick the 50 over the 85? i find myself having to get really close to use that focal length, i just thought the 85 might work a little better. :o
     
  13. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    really depends. i have both, i reach for the 50 more for candids than i do the 85.
     
  14. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,737
    Likes Received:
    55
    keep the 28-75 and sell the 50 to buy the 11-16 2.8

    Make your next lens a 70-200 of some sort.
     
  15. tetsuo

    tetsuo And shepherds we shall be...

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    9,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    not sure that i can budget in the 11-16, but i might be able to sell the 50 and get the tokina 12-24. i suppose that's an option, but i would like to keep a fast prime for my daughter's dance competitions, the lighting there is usually terrible and they don't allow flash photography.

    edit - i'm saying the 12-24 because i've seen used copies for 400 or less and haven't seen any copies of the 11-16 used :o
     
  16. Todd1225

    Todd1225 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have the 28-75 and the 10-22. If I had to do it again I would have gotten the 17-50 and completely skipped the 10-22. The 10-22 just has too much distortion and is really weird shooting people. It's a neat "effect" lens, but it's just not much use shooting important stuff because of the distortion.

    I follow the this rule, typically I can move closer to the subject if needed but you cannot always back up.
     

Share This Page