HELP - Rethinking focal range

Hi everyone,

 

I am beginning to notice the limitations of my redundant lens collection (EF

50mm f/1.8; EF 28-90mm F/4-5.6; EFS 17-85mm F/4-5.6 IS USM).

I have nothing that will go beyond the 110mm range (the 28-90 on a 30D will

translate roughly to that). I shoot pretty much everything from people to

places to things. Just depends on the day and location, so there isn't really a

specific need for, say, a portrait or macro lens.

 

I am contemplating selling the EFS 17-85mm IS USM and the EF 28-90. this should

hopefully net me around $450-500.

 

The question then is, what would be the ideal replacements for these two lenses?

I have thought about the EF 28-105mm and the EF 100-300mm as my 2 new lenses,

which I should be able to purchase with the money.

My hesitation is that since these lenses clearly cost half what the 17-85mm IS

USM does, they must not be very good lenses. Would this be a fair assumption?

 

If not, what would be the wisest replacement(s) for a $500 budget?

thanks for your help!

I'd keep the 17-85 IS USM and save up for a 70-200 range zoom lens or a cheaper EF 70-210 f4 with AFD motor, or the newer EF 70-210 USM. Check out 'that auction site' for a selection of longer lenses. Or sell both zooms and buy an EF-S 17-55 with one of the many 70/75-300 EF lenses.

Just my thoughts.

Keep the 17-85 ... The range is very convenient ... you certainly miss it if you sell it. The other thing is, that actually Canon has a 150Euro rebate on this lens, so the time for sale is certainly bad.

 

The 28-90 is one of Canons cheapest lens in the whole program. You likely wont get more that 30-40Euros for that one.

 

The EF50/1.8 is worth every cent it has cost.

 

If you need something longer, and if the budget is tight, try to get the EF 70-210/3.5-4.5 USM or the EF 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM. They shouldn't cost more than about 180Euros/$ used.

The 100-300 USM is a good lens, and a great one for the money

Keep the 17-85 IS

I don't think 28mm is wide enough on a 30D. It's like using a 45mm lens on a film camera. You might find that tolerable, but I wouldn't.

 

The 17-85 is a decent, but not really great lens, that happens to include image stabilization. The Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 is in the same category but without IS, so I don't see that this gains you anything but freeing up a little money. The 28-90 and newer 28-105 f/4-5.6 are not as good.

 

The Canon 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM is also in the same class, but is not as sharp at the long end. If you're talking about the older 100-300 f/5.6, then it's a clunky lens that is just marginally better optically.

 

I think you ought to dump the 28-90 for $50-75 and put it towards a tele lens. Canon's 75-300 can be had new for about $150, so all you'd need to add is another $75-100. This isn't a particularly good lens, but there is nothing else in the same price range any better. The 100-300 USM is a better handling lens, but is not better optically, and costs more. Maybe you can find a good used one though.

 

If you can cough up more cash, the Canon 70-200 f/4L or 70-300 USM IS (not 75-300 USM IS) are quite nice.

Don't be fooled by the price of the 17-85/IS lens. It is no better than any of the lenses mentioned so far, it just has IS which is an extremely expensive option.

Having said that, now that you have it I would keep it and add a used Canon EF 70-210mm f3.5-4.5 USM zoom lens, as someone else mentioned. You should be able to find one for around $150. When I don't want to carry my 85/1.4, and 200/2, I use the 70-210 and it does well enough that I don't worry about it. Eventually I will likely replace it with a 70-200/4 L. Good luck.

You don't sound as if you are about to move to FF digital, and if you did, the 28~90 would be a hindrance rather than a help. If you can raise a small amount of money on it, then do so - otherwise, just drop it down a very deep hole to help clarify your mind about what you want to do next.

 

There's nothing wrong with the 17~85 that even the respectable 3.5~4.5 version of the 28~105 would fix - that's certainly not a good way to go beyond the long end of your present kit, and would do nothing for either flexibility or quality. For now, unless you want to spend serious money on some of the much higher quality alternatives, hang onto the 17~85. And hang onto your 50/1.8 - it means you have at least one lens of really high optical quality to judge others by, and it's cheap enough that selling it won't generate enough money to affect your options significantly.

 

300mm - or even 200mm - without IS is quite hard to handle on FF, and for general use is pretty much a waste of time on 1.6-factor. The 100~300 was quite an appealing lens in its day by comparison with what was then the competition (around 1990) but it's simply not a good option on 1.6-factor digital, in terms either of basic image quality or of useability. Same applies to other non-IS lenses of that era like the optically reasonably respectable 70~210/3.5~4.5USM. If you want to have telephoto coverage out to 300mm, by far your best option at reasonable cost would appear to be the 70~300IS (NOT, as pointed out above, the earlier 75~300IS) and you'd do much better to save unti, you can afford that rather than buy something that will just add to your frustrations.

I would keep the 50 and the 17-85. The 28-90 is the only one that seems redunant, because it doesn't do anything the 17-85 lens doesn't do, and, in fact, does less because it has no IS.

 

Next, I would think that you might get a lot of use out of a 135mm or 200mm lens, if you wnat something fixed and fast.

 

If you want a second zoom instead, I think the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS is a great candidate. No ring USM, so it's either auto or manual, never both, but seems like a big bang for the buck.

 

Keith

This is also a good time to consider the 70-200 f/4 (non-IS). This lens is a great value. You get tons of great optical quality for not very much money. It is optically leaps and bounds above any of the non-L telephoto zooms. They are more expensive than you are loking at, but not by much, and great prices come up on used ones.

 

Keith

<p>The 17-85 does everything the 28-90 does (except the last 5mm, which isn't all that significant), is quite a bit better than the crappy 28-90, and adds IS. The 28-90 is redundant, so no matter what you do, you can safely lose the 28-90, but don't expect to get a lot of money for it.</p>

 

<p>The 17-85 is one of the better consumer-grade zoom lenses around, both optically and mechanically. It covers what, to me, is a very useful focal length range; on 1.6-crop, I need a lens that goes about that wide, and it has good reach on the telephoto end. IS is wonderful if you shoot handheld and your subjects are often stationary, which frequently applies to my shooting (but may or may not apply to yours). Don't get rid of this one unless you're sure you don't need something it does or are replacing it with something that does everything it does and more - and in the latter case, you're probably not going to be able to afford a lens that is everything the 17-85 is and then some on the proceeds of selling the 17-85 and the 28-90.</p>

 

<p>The good 28-105 (the f/3.5-4.5 one) is probably slightly behind the 17-85 optically. I say this based on reports that the 17-85 is comparable to the 28-135, and <a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/writings/eflenses.html" target="_blank">my own experience that the 28-135 is somewhat better than the 28-105</a> (I owned both at one time, and still have the 28-135). Trading in the 17-85 to get the 28-105 only makes sense if you don't mind a slight downgrade optically and the loss of both wide angle (28 on 1.6-crop is a slightly short normal, not a wide-angle) and IS. The cheaper 28-105/4-5.6 is best considered as the 28-90 with a slight stretch on the long end; it belongs down the same hole as the 28-90.</p>

 

<p>The 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM is a decent consumer telephoto zoom, a statement which constitutes damning with faint praise. It's soft on the long end, which is pretty much par for the course for such a lens. If you keep in the bottom half or so of its range, it's pretty good, and at the long end it's OK if you stop it down (but a 300mm f/11 lens isn't much use unless there's bright sun or you're using a tripod to take pictures of stationary subjects). The 70-300 mentioned a couple of responses above mine is a much better lens, though there is a significant difference in the price tag to go along with that. If you meant one of the two discontinued 100-300s (the f/5.6 and the f/5.6L), the non-L one is not really worth considering; the L one is rather dated mechanically but very good optically. The used 70-210/3.5-4.5 USM is a good suggestion, if you can find one and are willing to buy a discontinued lens on the used market; it has a very good reputation.</p>

 

<p>Let me finish up with a question that I really ought to have put at the start: what's wrong with your lens collection, apart from the duplication? Are you lacking speed, wide-angle coverage, telephoto coverage, optical quality? There's no point going shopping until you know what you're looking for, and in the case of someone with an existing lens collection, what you're looking for depends on what is lacking in your current collection. There's no point buying something to fix a problem if you can't define what the problem is in the first place.</p>

There is nothing terribly "wrong" with my current collection, other than the fact that I have no telephoto capabilities, and that I have 2 lenses that essentially do the same thing (granted one is far superior than the other at it).

If I had $500 I'd go out and buy the 70-200 f/4L in a heartbeat. Unfortunately money is a little hard to come by for the time being. Also unfortunately my thirst for photography is not.

i was hoping to get something that would put me into the 200mm range.

This would give me more options when I do take landscape or street photos. although, at my price range, the street photos will have to be on a bright day because the lens will be slow.

 

Thank you to everyone who has contributed thus far!

It is looking like I may spring for a 70-210mm, either normal or macro. I have found a few options on the famous auction site that I think I can afford, provided I can sell the 28-90mm (which I already have an offer of $50 on).

The Canon EF 70-210mm f4 Macro does not have the same reputation as the 70-210mm f3.5-4.5 USM so be careful. The USM focus is quick and very quiet, by the way. I see KEH has one for $179, so certainly do not spend more than that.

 

 

Please ignore the comment someone made above that a 200 or 300mm lens without IS is "hard to handle" or "a waste of time". Both statemenst are utterly false. IS may come in handy for lowlight situations where you can't use flash or a tripod, but how often is that? It also will not help stop motion blur at all. Good luck!