The EF-S 15-85mm lens is a relatively recent lens, and I haven't seen too many recommendations on it thus far. However, most of the reviews have been very positive and the lens is said to be optically on par with the 17-55mm. It sacrifices the constant wider aperture for better zoom range that could translate to fewer lens changes. As for the 50mm f/1.8, it is one of the most recommended lenses, dirt cheap and suited to low light & portrait photography.
The two lens combo is also cheaper than the single one (around INR 53,000 vs INR 64,000). The usage scenarios I have in mind are the following, along with my thoughts:
- General purpose\travel photography - the 15-85mm seems to be more versatile than the 17-55mm for this, especially when light is not a constraint
- Portraits - the 17-55mm would be quite versatile in this regard (however, 55mm feels a bit short for getting tight shots, and getting close can lead to distortion)
- Event photography (weddings, parties etc) - the 17-55mm has the low light advantage over the 15-85mm, and 50mm can get a bit long in closed environments
- Low light shooting - the 17-55mm is more versatile, but the 50mm has a wider aperture
So, which would be a better upgrade for my current setup comprising of the Canon 550D with the 18-55mm IS & 55-250mm IS kit lenses? Are there any alternatives worth considering in this budget?
Note: I had asked a similar question regarding upgrades for the kit lens, but that was without a particular scenario or lens in mind.
Answer
Before you get any other lens, get the 50mm f/1.8. Its a must-have lens for anyone even remotely interested in portrait photography. You just can't go wrong with it. Actually I never used the 18-55 after I got my fifty prime.
For your zoom needs, you would be better off with a third party lens like the the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC). At INR 21,000 ($440) it costs a third of the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8, and has great overall performance.
Here is my story:
I had a similar dilemma a while back. I had a Canon 500D with the 18-55 kit lens and was looking for a new lens. Since my budget was tight I purchased the 50mm f/1.8 and I was blown away by what a difference the wider aperture made. Amazing low light performance and sweet looking bokeh made it difficult to take a bad shot with it.
But with a crop factor of 1.6, I found it a little too tight for indoor use and while 'zooming with your feet' is the norm with a prime lens, I found myself running out of space indoors.
Also I used to shoot a lot wide open and found that shooting a portrait at f/1.8, even getting both eyes in focus becomes a challenge. Get a second person in the frame and there is no way you can get both people in focus. So I started stopping it down to about f/2.8 which gave me workable DOF while still giving great low light performance.
This made me realize that I needed a lens with the versatility of the kit lens and the wide aperture like the prime. I was on a tighter budget and hence purchased the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC). I have not been disappointed since. I still turn to the 50mm f/1.8 when I really need the extra 2/3rd stop or really shallow DOF, but the Tamron is what I use 95% of the times.
I've shot portraits, concerts, weddings and its always performed well. It would be better if it were a little sharper wide open and if the autofocus wasn't as loud, but its overall performance and versatility trump these minor issues.
PS: I'm a huge fan of bokeh and shoot mostly in low light, so I thought it would be useful to show some examples of what f/2.8 lets you do.
This one shows how you can use the shallow DOF at f/2.8 to get sweet bokeh. The 50 prime would have also done wonders here, but you can't keep switching lenses at an event.
This one was shot with just a candle to the left (out of the frame) and the lighter (in the frame).
No comments:
Post a Comment