# Canon eos rebel t2i-550D



## wiqbal (Apr 10, 2010)

Hi, 
Just bought a canon eos rebel t2i-550D(18-55mm IS kit lens). Was a pain in the ass to find but i got my hands on it.

I've been shooting for the past few days, and iv compared the pictures to my friends Canon 7D. Really no difference. 

Iv been looking around for some new glass, especially since my friend had just purchased a 17-40 f/4L USM.

Do you think its worth the money to buy L glass on a t2i?


----------



## usayit (Apr 10, 2010)

wiqbal said:


> Do you think its worth the money to buy L glass on a t2i?



Yes...


----------



## KmH (Apr 10, 2010)

usayit said:


> wiqbal said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think its worth the money to buy L glass on a t2i?
> ...


According to some reviews that's the only way you'll get your moneys worth out of the T2i.


----------



## usayit (Apr 10, 2010)

let me elaborate with more than just "yes".  

I've never been too impressed with Canon's "kit" lenses (excluding those packaged with the 24-105L).  So comparing the "kit" lens to a 17-40L which is well known as a good performer makes it an obvious "yes".  

BUT

If you are ~not~ planning to move to full frame Canon body anytime soon, you might want to consider the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS instead.  This lens is also a known performer for crop sensored cameras but has the advantage of a IS and faster aperture.  I think it might be a better step rather than the 17-40L.  Many say optically its just as good as any "L" lens but Canon doesn't make a habit of giving "L" designations to EF-S mount lenses.

The bad news is that the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is more expensive.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 10, 2010)

L-glass is too broad a category to give good,solid suggestions on. With the high-density sensor in the T2i, the lower-end lenses will not really "leverage" that sensor, as shown by tests and reviews across the web. The 17-40L is not as solid a choice IMHO as say, the 70-200 f/4 L IS would be; where the 70-200 f/4-L IS is a solid optical performer with no real direct competition, the 17-40-L has other 3rd party alternatives, like several lenses in the 16-,17,18-50mm f/2.8 range from Tokina, Tamron,and Sigma,all with pretty decent performance at very fair,reasonable prices AND good focal length range for use on a 1.6x body. I'd much rather have a top-quality 17-55 f/2.8 with IS than say an 18-55 kit zoom; if I could live without the IS, then the 3rd party alternatives in the 16,17,18-50mm f/2.8 range make a lot of sense. There are enough L- model lenses that they kind of need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis,and your future needs factor into the decision obviously.


----------



## cfusionpm (Apr 12, 2010)

I would personally skip on the third party options, and stick to the already-recommended EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS.  You can get lucky with Sigma, Tokina, or Tamron, but it's pretty hit-and-miss and unfortunately, its often "miss."  Being that they are so much cheaper though, you often get 80% of the performance for significantly less money.  It's all about what kind of budget you are shopping for.


----------



## vinski (Apr 17, 2010)

I have a 55-300 and I will buy a 17-135 for my t2i and rent other lenses when needed. That works best for me. it's usually 20-40 per day and I just shoot like crazy when I get them. Hope it's working out for you I am on a waiting list for this camera.


----------

