Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: which lens?
OpenSourcePhoto > Digital Photography > Cameras
Days Go By
Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM or 17-55 IS USM 2.8
which is the widest, sharpest?
I just purchased the 17-55 and thinking now there might be better out there...
I already own the 70-200 and 85mm which i love both muchly, but need wide!
depaulaphoto
I love my 17-55 on my canon 30d!! It's my all around lens!!! I shoot almost everything with it! I love it that much....
danwatkins
Don't own the 17-55...but I love my 135 2.0 -- great lens for telephoto on a 1.6x sensor without the intimidation factor of the 70-200. The 135 is tack sharp (it should be, it's a prime) from edge to edge from my experience.
Matt Bowker
If you want wider than the 17-55 it's going to get very expensive. the 16-35 is really nice but only 1mm wider than what you've got, there's a 15mm fisheye, and a 14mm rectilinear (excellent lens). I believe there's also a 10-22 EF-S lens, which you can use now but if you go to a full frame like the 5D you won't be able to use it. I assume this isn't a problem since you've already bought the 17-55 EF-S
Days Go By
thanks.
ya, I dont need to go wider than 17-55, I was just worried the 135 would'nt be wide enough.
Maruf
QUOTE(Days Go By @ May 23 2008, 09:12 AM) *
thanks.
ya, I dont need to go wider than 17-55, I was just worried the 135 wouldn't be wide enough.


I'm confused. I guess wide is a relative term, but you can't really compare 17mm to 135mm. 135mm is not a wide lens.

Are you talking about wide apertures?

Looks like you have 17mm to 200mm covered, so a pretty nice range. the 135 2.0L is one of the sharpest lenses out there, and it's a stop faster than your 70-200, assuming you have the 2.8 version.

What are you looking to shoot that you don't think the 135 will be wide enough? You need something longer than the 85, but possibly not as long as 135, is that what you mean?
Days Go By
no I meant wide.. as in not having to back up so far...
I know the 17-55 is wide... just wonder if the 135 was a better lens overall.. like large families, wedding parties..










QUOTE(Maruf @ May 23 2008, 06:09 AM) *
I'm confused. I guess wide is a relative term, but you can't really compare 17mm to 135mm. 135mm is not a wide lens.

Are you talking about wide apertures?

Looks like you have 17mm to 200mm covered, so a pretty nice range. the 135 2.0L is one of the sharpest lenses out there, and it's a stop faster than your 70-200, assuming you have the 2.8 version.

What are you looking to shoot that you don't think the 135 will be wide enough? You need something longer than the 85, but possibly not as long as 135, is that what you mean?
Dan Fontaine
I am a litttle confused to what your asking but I'll give it a shot.
The 135 is a great mid range telephoto. It is a excellent lens for portraits of one or two people and will throw the background out of focus real nice at low apertures. It is not the lens you want to be using for large families and wedding parties. Your 17-55 is what you should be using for those shots.
Days Go By
thanks very much!
what other lens' would you recommend other than the 17-55 for large groups?
JimCook
QUOTE(Days Go By @ May 25 2008, 07:42 PM) *
thanks very much!
what other lens' would you recommend other than the 17-55 for large groups?


16-35 F2.8 II I have and love.

If you want something very sharp, 24mm F1.4 is suppose to be a killer lens, but I don't have it.


This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.