ArixMedia Photography wrote:
Which lens do you think is better for indoor full body shots:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

or

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L

I'm trying to figure out which one of these would be better for this situation.
The lenses i currently have aren't suited for full body shots, besides the kit lens which i hate.

I currently have:

Canon EF 50mm f1.4
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L
Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5

None of these are really effective for full shots indoors.

Thanks

I have the 17-40mm L, and it's too much of a fish-eye for my 5D and 10D.  I think the 50mm is the best lens for full body.  That's if your camera has a 1.6 lens magnification factor, making it a 1.6x50mm = 80mm lens.  Of course, I'm assuming that you have enough space in your studio to get the full length.

Ruben Sanchez wrote:
Of course, I'm assuming that you have enough space in your studio to get the full length.

He's already stated 50mm is not wide enough in his tiny studio space, hence the need to go wider.

Since he's already invested in the EF-S system, I'd recommend the 17-55/2.8 IS, simply because it's wider, has image stabilization, and completes his wide to normal range of focal lengths.

If he were looking for an outdoor lens, I'd recommend the 17-40.

H and H Photography wrote:
Consider the new Sigma 30mm f1.4.  I am glad I read through this, because I would have seriously questioned any of the posts suggesting anything wider than 200-300mm if you were truly asking as to what is best.  It really depends on the goal you are after, but if you are looking to minimize distortion from being too close to your subject, compress your backgrounds so you don't have to fill in the sides in PS, and make the most flattering images of their faces, then the longer the focal length, the better in my opinion.  In my studio I am almost always using a 360mm on a RZ67 with a digital back---but I am very lucky and have the space.  So, I guess my advice is to grab a zoom, find the focal length you can make a full length with, and then find the prime lens closest to that.

I have to agree with the prime. You have the kit lens, find out what sizr works and get the prime closest. If not I love my 24-70 2.8. Want a 20-35 cheap?
Fred

Brandon Ching wrote:
If he were looking for an outdoor lens, I'd recommend the 17-40.

There's not that much difference in the focal length between 17-40mm and 17-55mm.  However, there is a big difference in the quality of the glass between the L lens and the EF-S lens.

Get the 17-40mm lens, if you're determined to buy a lens.  I use it on occasion outdoors, and it's a terrific lens.  Most of the time, I prefer the 24-70mm 2.8 L lens for in the studio, full length shots.  Outdoors, it's a great lens too.  It's only a few hundred dollars more than the 17-40mm, but well worth it.  You might want to think about that lens too.

Ruben Sanchez wrote:
There's not that much difference in the focal length between 17-40mm and 17-55mm.  However, there is a big difference in the quality of the glass between the L lens and the EF-S lens.

Get the 17-40mm lens, if you're determined to buy a lens.  I use it on occasion outdoors, and it's a terrific lens.  Most of the time, I prefer the 24-70mm 2.8 L lens for in the studio, full length shots.  Outdoors, it's a great lens too.  It's only a few hundred dollars more than the 17-40mm, but well worth it.  You might want to think about that lens too.

There is not much of quality difference in the 14-40 and the 17-55 2.8. the 17-55 is a great lens which should be made in full frame.

Ruben Sanchez wrote:

There's not that much difference in the focal length between 17-40mm and 17-55mm.  However, there is a big difference in the quality of the glass between the L lens and the EF-S lens.

i don't believe this is true of the Ef-s 17-55.  My memory could be mistaken but I believe the lens is made of the same glass as the L series lenses the only difference being that the housing is not the same as the L series and the lens isn't weather sealed.  If you do a search on the EF-S 17-55 on Dpreview.com you'll see that it is preferred over the 24-70 L by many people and that the picture quality is actually considered better- though that is subjective.

Z  Image wrote:
i don't believe this is true of the Ef-s 17-55.

My assistant has the EF S.  She tested, not me, my 17-40mm against her 17-55mm, and there was a big difference in the quality of the photos.  There is also a noticable, visable difference in the lenses mutli-coating  between the 2 lenses, making the L lenses' photos more color saturated, and with higher contrast.  She now wants the 17-40mm L lens.

When possible, one should always do an A-B comparison test, to see which product is better.  This way there's no, "I think, she thinks" arguement.

Z  Image wrote:
i don't believe this is true of the Ef-s 17-55.  My memory could be mistaken but I believe the lens is made of the same glass as the L series lenses the only difference being that the housing is not the same as the L series and the lens isn't weather sealed.  If you do a search on the EF-S 17-55 on Dpreview.com you'll see that it is preferred over the 24-70 L by many people and that the picture quality is actually considered better- though that is subjective.

This is true. Go to the canon site and see the shot taken with it. I don't think weather sealing is needed in a studio.

ArixMedia Photography wrote:
the 20d and rebel xti

The prob with the 50mm i have is that i dont have enough space to back up to get full shots, head to toe. I mainly shoot for our internal stock use so having the full body in the frame is important. When doing outdoor shots of course i have no problems with the current lenses.

Shoot somewhere else.

Ruben Sanchez wrote:

My assistant has the EF S.  She tested, not me, my 17-40mm against her 17-55mm, and there was a big difference in the quality of the photos.  There is also a noticable, visable difference in the lenses mutli-coating  between the 2 lenses, making the L lenses' photos more color saturated, and with higher contrast.  She now wants the 17-40mm L lens.

When possible, one should always do an A-B comparison test, to see which product is better.  This way there's no, "I think, she thinks" arguement.

While you may have preferred the 17-40L over the EF-S 17-55 you can find others who have compared the two or the Ef-S 17-55 and the 24-70 L and have preferred the 17-55 with regards to picture quality.  So I don't think the Op should be scared off of the 17-55 becasue it isn't an "L".

Heres the reviews from Fred Miranda
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/show … roduct=303

Ruben Sanchez wrote:

There's not that much difference in the focal length between 17-40mm and 17-55mm.  However, there is a big difference in the quality of the glass between the L lens and the EF-S lens.

Get the 17-40mm lens, if you're determined to buy a lens.  I use it on occasion outdoors, and it's a terrific lens.  Most of the time, I prefer the 24-70mm 2.8 L lens for in the studio, full length shots.  Outdoors, it's a great lens too.  It's only a few hundred dollars more than the 17-40mm, but well worth it.  You might want to think about that lens too.

I never said there was a remarkable difference in the focal lengths between the 2 lenses. I simply suggested the 2.8 because he was asking for an indoor lens where light may not be so abundant like it is outdoors. The point is moot if he is using strobes but still, he was looking for an indoor solution and I will recommend the faster glass over the L lens. The 17-55 can be stopped down, it just gives him more options with the 2.8 and IS.