Upgrade from EF-S 17-85mm IS

I like the focal length range of this lens, but I could use a couple more

f-stops. I don't see anything on the Canon website that jumps out as being much

faster in this focal length range. What non-Canon lenses should I consider? I

can live w/o the IS.

 

--

mike elliott

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?

act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=12955

http://tinyurl.com/rxs9q -Same link as above, shortened.

 

The Canon 17-55 f/2.8 USM IS. For anything faster than that (f/2.8), you'll have to use primes.

Depending on whether you spend most of your time at the wide or long end of your current lens, you might also consider the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=264304&is=USA&addedTroughType=search">EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM</a> and the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=239648&is=USA&addedTroughType=search">EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM</a>.

Non Canon lenses to consider include the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Di II, Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX DC.

I agree with Keith and Franklin: EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

 

It's expensive, but worth every penny.

There's nothing with the same range and more speed, you have to drop the range to get the speed.

<p>

If you don't want to spend $1200 for the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS I'd look at the <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_17-50_review.html">Tamron 17-50/2.8</a>. It's actually cheaper than the EF-S 17-85 and it's a constant f2.8. It's also sharper. Probably not as good as the Canon 17-55/2.8IS, and it doesn't have IS, but it's less than 1/3 of the price.

There's also the EF 24-85 f3.5-4.5 USM. It doesn't quite have as much wide cobverage, but tele is the same, and its faster.

unless you are using tripod most of the time I wouldn't give up on the IS just yet, especially if you seem to have a need for faster lens.

I went from the efs17-85 to the efs17-55. The IS combined with the f2.8 is a great speed upgrade.

The sharpness of the 17-55 is noticeably better than the 17-85 at larger apertures.

The focal length of the 17-85 is something you will miss (so anything shorter than 55 is not a good option.) I got over it when I saw the lovely bokeh of the 17-55.

The 17-55 is larger and heavier than the 17-85.

If the price is not a concern, the 17-55 f2.8 IS would be your best bet.

Thanks, Sitthivet -- normally you are right. Adding a stop or two while taking away IS is a wash under most circumstances. But when I'm shooting indoors with a flash and trying to balance the lighting with a long exposure, faster glass seems more useful than IS.

 

Thanks, Bob and others for suggesting some good alternatives. The Tamron f2.8 17-50 does look to be a good value. That Canon f2.8 17-55 sounds like a swell lens, but this Uncle Bob can't justify it.

the canon lens is quite a bit larger and heavier.

That's likely due to the Image Stabilization mechanism.