broken lens what to get now

[liverpool 1]

Ok so i dropped my tamron 17-50 vc 2.8 lens, need another one but wait, should i get the canon 17-55mm 2.8 or the sigma 17-50 2.8, all lens decent but i also want the lens for photos as well as video. by all readings the 17-55mm 2.8 for my canon 60d is sharp as a L lens, but ken rockwell says its only just sharper than the kit lens and only upgrade if got money to burn!!!
So my 100mm f2 canon briliant, my 50mm 1.8 ace, my 30mm 1.4 sigma ace, and now needed the 17-55 end or ?? Or would the 24-70 L Lens for full frame be better not that im going full frame, is it better glass? not sure if that has stabilization? Also has anyone got the sigma 70-200 2.8 or the 70-200 canon 2,8? would i benefit buying one of those also or just stick with the 100mm which is long enough on a crop sensor.. Are there any better lens out there??

[cgbier]

Who listens to Ken Rockwell?

[Dr. Benway]

Are there any better lens out there??

Jeez, what a mess. Stick to an EF-S lens on your crop sensor camera that will cover the shorter lengths missing - you know it, the 17-55 f2.8 if you need the speed. If not, the 18-55 kit lens.

Only invest in L series lenses if you are certain of buying a FF camera at some time.

The Canon 24-70mm and 70-200mm f2.8 = fantastic. But please buy a FF camera for them.

Who listens to Ken Rockwell?

Mrs. Rockwell?

[cgbier]

Mrs. Rockwell?

I even doubt that.

[liverpool 1]

Who listens to Ken Rockwell?

Me sometimes hehe

Jeez, what a mess. Stick to an EF-S lens on your crop sensor camera that will cover the shorter lengths missing - you know it, the 17-55 f2.8 if you need the speed. If not, the 18-55 kit lens.



Only invest in L series lenses if you are certain of buying a FF camera at some time.

The Canon 24-70mm and 70-200mm f2.8 = fantastic. But please buy a FF camera for them.





Mrs. Rockwell?

Thanks for advice Dr,your ok sometimes...

I even doubt that.

Hehehe

[zagnut]

Can't.Resist.Replying....

Rockwell is a biased idiot.

[liverpool 1]

Can't.Resist.Replying....

Rockwell is a biased idiot.

Maybe so Zagnut, but i respect anyone who knows what they are talking about and know more than me... Any ways i have plummed for the canon 17-55mm 2.8 is, hope fully here today...

[zagnut]

Maybe so Zagnut, but i respect anyone who knows what they are talking about and know more than me... Any ways i have plummed for the canon 17-55mm 2.8 is, hope fully here today...

I can agree with you on that. When I first got my DSLR a couple years back, his site was one of the first I came across and looked to for knowledge. So I can understand that.

Congrats on the 17-55! I'm hoping to upgrade my lenses this year and this was one I was looking at. But it's a little pricey. I have decided on the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS. This is more in my price range and fits the focal lengths I need. I'm not doing video with my DSLR though. I may reconsider for the Canon 17-55 if I can find a used one for a really low price.

[cgbier]

Maybe so Zagnut, but i respect anyone who knows what they are talking about and know more than me.....

This is what I oftentimes doubted with Ken. He praises what he gets paid for. That has nothing to with knowledge, just business sense.

I don't know much about Canon lenses (Nikonian and Olympicist here), but I bet you got a nice piece of glass.

[liverpool 1]

Let me tell you CG, IM ONLY LEARNING, but the 17-55 2.8 is far superior to my tamron, its as sharp as my 30mm 1.4 and the focus is pin sharp and quick, something that i need for photos... For video it does not need to be pin sharp but your experience knows brides love sharpness and colour, they do not know bokeh.... we do! but it sure helps if everything is sharp from day one.... Ken just making a living like all of us...x steve

[Simmy_M]

Well, It may be possible but I did not find lenses sharper than Tamron.

[liverpool 1]

Yep used a lot up to now and far sharper and quicker to focus like lightning