Is this lens worth the price?

[erinville]

I have a Canon EOS 500D camera & the lens which came with it is F3.5 - 5.6.
I have been looking at reviews of the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM & it's supposed to be great for portrait & group photos. The cheapest I have seen online is €700+. The reviews are brilliant. I'm just wondering if it's worth buying. I find that with my kit lens that if I stand close to the subject that their face is perfectly in focus, but if I stand back or zoom in from a distance I lose detail. I'm also wondering if I can change the Fstops if I am outside or if this lens stays at F2.8 all the time. All in all I would like to see your comments on the pros of buying this lens.

 

[little_pob]

To be honest, kit lenses are not designed for anything more than getting started with the camera - the optics are cheaper quality, and the build is usually plastic.

f/2.8 is the maximum aperture, but it will step down to f/22.

Canon are running a £60 cashback offer on this lens until June: Celebrate with Canon

For what it's worth, Tamron and Sigma both have 17-50mm Canon fit lenses with f/2.4 for cheaper.

 

[pipsqueaker]

You'd have to be a really fussy or very experienced photographer to notice much difference between
the kit lens and this one.
A jump up from f3.5 to f2.8 just isn't worth the money.
If you want to do do mainly portraits, then ditch the zooms and buy a normal telephoto lens, 90mm or 100mm are the optical lenses
for portraits.

 

[little_pob]

Just to add, if you want to have a play with the lens before committing to buy, have a look to see if there are any photography shops local to you that hire out lenses. For example: Calumet Photographic

You'd have to be a really fussy or very experienced photographer to notice much difference between the kit lens and this one.
A jump up from f3.5 to f2.8 just isn't worth the money.

Except the OP is actually hitting the limits of the kit lens.

You're also talking a whole stop worth of difference as though it's not noticeable? This image would refute that suggestion:

© Al Denelsbeck/Wading-In Photography

This could be the difference between getting the shot there and then and having to stop to set up the tripod.

...90mm or 100mm are the optical lenses for portraits.

For portraits prime lenses are the way to go, and a 50mm f/1.4 would be a nice addition to an 80mm or 100mm prime. For weddings a short zoom and a "nifty 50" will do those starting out.

 

[pipsqueaker]

You're also talking a whole stop worth of difference as though it's not noticeable? This image would refute that suggestion:

Anyone who takes portraits at full aperture is either 'artyfarty' or a fool
So f2.8 or f3.5 is irrelevant. Best results will be from f5.6 - f8

If anyone wants to pay £700 for a lens should be owning a DSLR with a full frame sensor to take advantage of it.

 

[little_pob]

If anyone wants to pay £700 for a lens should be owning a DSLR with a full frame sensor to take advantage of it.

That lens isn't designed for full frame sensors, or at least it wasn't on its initial release in 2007.

Unfortunately though, if the OP wants to stick with OEM lenses, there doesn't seem to be a lot of choice in terms of an upgrade from the 18-55mm kit lens with a similar zoom range:

• 17-40 f/4 L USM ~£615
• 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM ~£700
• 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM ~£600
• 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM ~£360

Which is why I suggested 3rd party manufacturers.

 

[erinville]

Thanks guys. The 50mm is a more sensible thought, & a lot cheaper.

 

[erinville]

Any suggestions for a lens for sport, especially soccer fo my Canon EOS 500D?

 

[little_pob]

Any suggestions for a lens for sport, especially soccer fo my Canon EOS 500D?

The pitch side pros will have at least 2 camera bodies, one fitted with a fast telephoto on a monopod, the other one will have a short zoom. As such an 18-200mm might be the way to go.

 

[kamasan]

the 50mm f1.8 will be perfect on a crop body for portraits

 

[Firemouth]

the 50mm f1.8 will be perfect on a crop body for portraits

actually, no it wont.
it has too much depth of field.
if you are using fixed 85-105 is what you need.

it why a true portrait lens is so expensive.

you need a "fast" wide aperture lens for portraits, in order to throw the background out of focus. At, competitively close distances.

I used a 85mm f1.2 "L" for years. now its true i didn't often use f1.2
but stepped down to1.8 it had resolution to burn, even on film.
it would far outstrip even the most expensive cameras in digi form.

mind you, my 200mm f2.8 made a fair portrait lens too. but for different situations.

you are always going to get a faster lens in fixed, than in zoom. (noticeably better quality too)

so I'd go for the Tamron, or if you can afford it, the Canon 85mm f1.8 (better still the 85mm f 1.2l)
its an investment that will pay off.

 

[kamasan]

The 50mm 1.8 on a 1.6 crop sensor works out to be 80mm, a small price to pay for a lens that costs 5% of the 85mm 1.2.
£70 vs £1400
Too much DOF on a 1.8 aperture ? then you go on to say you stop the 85mm 1.2 to f1.8 anyway ?
Your comparing a £70 lens to a £1400 lens, of course the 85mm 1.2 will be superb, but hes using a crop sensor so its actually 136mm on his camera.