Hello all,

So I've been thinking about this:

Selling my 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

Buying 24L & 85 f/1.8.

I shoot too much low light. IS isn't really a factor between 17-55, I can pretty much hand hold 1/4 second most of the time. I don't really like to use my flash for reasons of mobility and comfort but I do when I have to. f/2.8 isn't fast enough for a lot of low light situations I'm in all the time. I want to bring my camera everywhere with me, 17-55 IS + 580 exII isn't exactly under-cover. I might miss the 17mm FL but I know that 24mm will suit me fine. I could always invest in something else if I really missed that wide of a FL.

So, opinions please? Am i crazy?

Oh, PS: I do plan on upgrading bodies with better ISO capabilities..eventually.

 

You're only a little nuts.

When you need f1.8 nothing else will do. But examine that depth of field closely for your own work. I very rarely desire THAT shallow a DOF. It is sort of a special-effect to me and most of my < f2 lenses are not so hot (e.g. VERY soft corners) until f2.8 or higher.

Zooms do make you lazy but if you still use your "foot zoom" then zoom lenses are SO convenient for getting the perfect perspective and framing.

I don't know Canon's L zooms but I assume they are comparable to Nikon's. I find Nikon's newer high-quality zooms actually match (or beat!) my older (AF) prime lenses for most purposes.

 

How many more stops of light does the 1.8 have over the 2.8? A bit over 1 stop?

 

1 1/3 stops

 

I hated the 85 1.8 on a crop body as it became a useless focal length for me.

17-55 is a perfect lens IMO for 1.6 canon bodies.

I shoot with 2 lenses now; 50 1.4 and 28 2.8. Basically all I need for street stuff.

 

maybe i should just try the canon 28 or sigma 30. Ugh. I'll buy a bike before I invest in this!

 

Let me know if you sell your lens?

 

wanna swap me for a 24L?

 

Keep in mind that even if you could hold the camera perfectly still at 1/4 shooting at 1.8 will reduce your depth of field to a paper thin area that will render the remainder of your frame soft to the eye and moreover appear out of focus anyway. Furthermore, I agree with Triax in that the length of the 85mm becomes rather specific to only a few things... One of which is portraiture. In conclusion, I personally would hold off on changing the lenses at this point, and start investigating bodies that perform better in low light.

 

True. Good point. Hmm..