Canon DSLR Users: What do you think?

[GTaudiophile]

I currently have an EOS-20D with...

EFS 10-22 (EFS Mount)
EF 24-105 F4L IS (EF Mount)
Tamron 28-75 F2.8 (EF Mount)

For a while I have been under the impression that APS-C DSLRs are a flash-in-the-pan solution until Full-Frame 35mm CMOS sensors (EOS-5D) come down in price. Using this logic, I made the decision to invest in more EF lenses just in case I replace my EOS-20D with the next-gen version of the EOS-5D in about 12-18 months.

Recently, Canon announced the EFS 17-55 F2.8 IS. It retails at BHphoto for $1179. In comparison, my 6-month-old 24-105 retails new for $1250. Both have IS. The former is a faster lens at F2.8 and it's wider. The latter is slower at F4 but it's an "L" lens with "L" build quality and far more reach. The 17-55 is so far getting rave reviews as possibly the sharpest lens Canon has ever made, just as sharp if not more so than the EF 50 F1.4 @ F2.8.

So, my question is this. Would I be a fool to sell my EF 24-105 AND Tamron 28-75 and buy the 17-55 to go along with my 10-22? I would have two EFS lenses and only a max reach of 55mm. I would probably then pick up a 70-200 F4L at some point in the future, giving me a 15mm gab between 55 and 70. What do you all think?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Are you a professional photographer? If not, I wouldn't make that leap unless you do a lot of shooting indoors without a flash.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Are you a professional photographer? If not, I wouldn't make that leap unless you do a lot of shooting indoors without a flash.

No, just a hobby. I think the EFS 10-22 + EF 24-105 is a pretty good combo. But that 17mm F2.8 is pretty tempting I must say. The 10-22 is a F3.5-4.5 lens.

 

[tfinch2]

Personally, I wouldn't drop 1200 on a lens that is EF-S unless I had money to burn.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Personally, I wouldn't drop 1200 on a lens that is EF-S unless I had money to burn.

Yeah, that's why it's not an easy decision. $1200 for a non-L, EFS = WTF!!!

But still, the reviews are pretty glowing. An Example.

 

[DBL]

It's a tough call. The answer really depends on the future of APS-C. Advancements in sensor technology would seem to make APS-C a viable long-term solution. Nikon has already committed to it. It would certainly help to keep cameras and lenses lighter and smaller. However, it's pretty certain that FF technology will hit the ~ 1.5K price point in the next 1 - 2 years. Most likely Canon will keep developing for both sizes as their most prized and expensive lenses are made for it.

Personally, I like the idea of holding onto my 24-105L. Right now, the wide end is a bit lacking on my 20D but an eventual upgrade to FF will make it an awesome all-around lens, significantly wider than the 17-55 on a APS-C.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Personally, I wouldn't drop 1200 on a lens that is EF-S unless I had money to burn.

Yeah, that's why it's not an easy decision. $1200 for a non-L, EFS = WTF!!!

But still, the reviews are pretty glowing. An Example.

I'm wouldn't be concerned with it not being L glass as much as I would be with it being EF-S mount.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Personally, I wouldn't drop 1200 on a lens that is EF-S unless I had money to burn.

Yeah, that's why it's not an easy decision. $1200 for a non-L, EFS = WTF!!!

But still, the reviews are pretty glowing. An Example.

I'm wouldn't be concerned with it not being L glass as much as I would be with it being EF-S mount.

Agreed, I'd go with the compatibility of EF lens mounts rather than EF-S. Especially at that price.

 

[GTaudiophile]

I mean, worst-case scenerio is that the next-gen EOS-5D costs $1,500-2,000, really bringing FF to the masses. Overnight EFS lenses would drop at least 50% in value, especially ones like the 17-55. Of course this assumes that the next-gen 5D is EF only. There's always that rumor that Canon will make a $1500 FF camera that supports both EF and EFS.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I mean, worst-case scenerio is that the next-gen EOS-5D costs $1,500-2,000, really bringing FF to the masses. Overnight EFS lenses would drop at least 50% in value, especially ones like the 17-55. Of course this assumes that the next-gen 5D is EF only. There's always that rumor that Canon will make a $1500 FF camera that supports both EF and EFS.

I wouldn't bet on it. Look at what the 30D was rumored to be, and how pissed people were when it came out.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I mean, worst-case scenerio is that the next-gen EOS-5D costs $1,500-2,000, really bringing FF to the masses. Overnight EFS lenses would drop at least 50% in value, especially ones like the 17-55. Of course this assumes that the next-gen 5D is EF only. There's always that rumor that Canon will make a $1500 FF camera that supports both EF and EFS.

How could a FF support EF-S lenses? The image circle would not cover the sensor.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I mean, worst-case scenerio is that the next-gen EOS-5D costs $1,500-2,000, really bringing FF to the masses. Overnight EFS lenses would drop at least 50% in value, especially ones like the 17-55. Of course this assumes that the next-gen 5D is EF only. There's always that rumor that Canon will make a $1500 FF camera that supports both EF and EFS.

How could a FF support EF-S lenses? The image circle would not cover the sensor.

I know what logic dictates. People are just assuming Canon will create something that defies that logic...something new and innovative.

 

[jamesbond007]

I'd personally hold onto your 20D for the time being and avoid the purchase of EF-S lenses. I've got a buddy that shoots pro (sports) with a 1D Mark IIn and was pretty pissed when this lens came out as an EF-S mount. He shrugged it off and bought a second 400 2.8.

My thoughts might be different if the 70-200 2.8 IS was EF-S along with the 85 1.2, but I wouldn't jump the gun too soon. You have a wonderful Canon body and a nice lens set to start with.

I'm doing my best to work up $1700 to purchase the 70-200 2.8 IS this summer. Wish me luck!

 

[PricklyPete]

I'd just stick with what you have.

If you didn't already have the glass you have...it might be worth thinking about...but with the possibility of an affordable full frame camera, I wouldn't invest too heavily in EFS lenses.

If I do have some money to burn at some point...I might consider this lens as a travel lense though...

 

[randomlinh]

i'd say don't do it. The lens is indeed awesome, but man.. that's a big price to pay. I have my sigma 18-50 f/2.8 DC, and am torn on what to do with it. I can't give up 2.8 for FF (and have no intentions anytime soon on going that route, I'll buy a used 20/30D before then). I really wish canon had made it a FF lens w/o the IS@ 2.8.. the closest thing in my buget range is the 17-40L

 

[ProviaFan]

I'm on the other side, but I still think you shouldn't do it. This all depends on your style of shooting, but I have found that the 24-85 range on a 1.5X crop factor works well for me; I occasionally want wider, but if I didn't have the longer end of the zoom, I'd be cropping a lot more and losing significant quality on numerous pictures because of it.

I realize that the lens is very good, but so are your current ones. For a simple exercise, use something like Adobe Bridge which you'd set in the preferences to display along with the filename the focal length of each shot, and look through your collection to see what lengths you spend most of your time at. Also consider how many times you've been out shooting, and found yourself in the situation where you're backed up against the end of one of the zooms and had to change to the other one quickly to get a shot. IMHO, these practical factors (along with the potential for more affordable full frame cameras on the Canon side) should influence your decision more than a bunch of people oohing and aahing over some new, cool lens.