New Lens for me

[bgclight]

Hi Bob:

I have the Canon 17-85 and the Canon L lens 24-70. I am thinking of purchasing the Canon 17-55 lens to use indoors without a flash.

Will my 24-70 for the most part do as well as the 17-55? I am using the XTi and the 40D. For the most part I use the 40D for landscape pictures with the 24-105 L lens. I take my XTi everywhere I go.

I know this question has probably been asked before, but I have not visited the forum for about a year.

Thanks for your input.

BGC

[Bob Atkins]

Well, the 24-105 is f4 and the 17-55 is f2.8. Both have IS, so the 17-55 gives you a one stop overall advantage (plus a wider angle of view, which might be useful in confined indoor spaces).

So the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM will be the better lens for indoor use without a flash, but only you can decide if it's worth the cost. You'll then have three different lenses with a lot of overlap.

Though you could go faster with a prime lens (50/1.4, 35/1.3, 35/2 etc.), none of them has IS, so for static subjects they may be no better than the f2.8 lens with IS. They would allow a faster shutter speed though, which could be a help if your subjects are moving.

The Sigma 35/1.4 DC HSM might also be worth considering. It's two stops faster than the 17-55/2.8 and so might be a better bet for images with (moving) people in them.

[bgclight]

Thanks Bob:

I noted that I also have the 24-70L lens which is also 2.8. Is this lens in any way a substitute for the 17-55.

Please forgive my ignorance. I realize they are two different lens. I seem to not have as much success with the 24-70 as it does not have IS.

I will look into the Sigma lens.

BGC

[Bob Atkins]

Sorry, I misread your post! I thought you had the 24-105/4L IS, not the 24-70/2.8L

The advantage of the 17-55/2.8 over the 24-70/2.8 is that it is image stabilized, so it can give you the ability to shoot at shutter speeds perhaps 3 stops slower, which is a significant adbantage for static subjects. Of course moving subjects (such as people at a party) requires a faster shutter speed, so for them something like the Sigma 30/1.4 is at an advantage since it allows a shutter speed two stops faster than an f2,8 lens does.

So it really depends on what your subject matter is. If it's indoor architecture, then the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS would give you more capability to work in low light without a tripod than the EF 24-70/2.8L. On the other hand if you're photographing people indoors in low light (e.g. at a wedding), then you might be better off with a faster prime like the Sigma 30/1.4 or the Canon 35/1.4 (which is LOT more expensive though).

[bgclight]

Thanks again Bob.

Actually, I have both the 24-105L and the 24-70L. I also have the Canon 85mm 1.8 lens. At your suggestion I had purchased the new 70-300 lens. It is great. I wanted the 70-200mm 2.8 lens but decided that not only is it pricey but I will not be doing enough photography to justify that one!!

I purchased a Sigma lens from Amazon last night. Most of my indoor stuff is church, weddings, etc.

I was a member of your Forum when it first started but somehow got lost in the problems way back.

Thanks for listing my pictures on your gallery. As time goes on is it appropriate to upload more to change out what is there? My wife fell and broke her hip about a year ago and I have been out of photography since then. She is doing well and we wiil start traveling and taking a few more pictures. I had been upgrading each time Canon came out with a new camera. I have decided to settle down with the XTi and the 40D. I had wanted the lens cleaning capability even though it has not been a problem for me at this point. I can not keep up! When I learn those cameras maybe I will upgrade and maybe not. The cameras are smarter tha I am.

I appreciate your time and counsel.

BGC