New Travel Lens for 30D

[ewanshears]

I currently use 35mm film camera with a 24-135mm Sigma. This to me is the

perfect range for on the move photography. I am about to purchase a 30D and am

looking at one lens to start off with... the closest i could find to my

preferred range is the 17-85 IS (canon) but i have read pretty bad reviews of

this lens.... so i guess this leaves me with the Sigma 17-70.... or does it?

any ideas or comments on either of those lenses or indeed any other would be

greatly appreciated... Regards, Ewan.

[philip_kecher]

I have no experience with the Sigma 17-70 lens.

 

I do have experience with the 17-85mm IS. It is a GREAT lens for what it is. The only major

problem is distortion at the wide end. I would expect the Sigma to have similar problems

given its focal range.

 

The Canon lens is a good medium price lens with a good range of focal lengths. It works

well as a lighter walk around lens than the L.

 

The bad reviews are out of line. Yes, there is truth to them. However, they are comparing

the lens to the 16-35mm L or the 24-70mm L. No comparision. Those lenses are fast, big,

and expensive. They have a limited zoom range. All of this contributes to the L lenses

being better optically.

 

The nature of these reviews what be like me giving a bad review for the 30D because it

doesn't match a Hasselblad H3D in image detail.

 

I own the big three L lenses. When I travel I take the 16-35mm, one or two fast wide

primes, and the the 17-85mm IS. If I carry the camera bag I have the 16-35 on the

camera. If I leave the bag at the hotel or in the car, the IS lens is the one I use.

 

Philip

[lotsawa]

> 17-85 IS (canon) but i have read pretty bad reviews of this lens ..

 

I have read pretty good reviews of this lens ... and I have read both about the Sigma.

 

Optically they seem to be more or less on par, some say the Sigma is a bit better, some say chances are higher that you'll get a bad sample with back/front focus (I really don't know, but in general I believe wrong focus is a complex matter where a lot of factors are involved - usually people tend to blame the lens or the camera, but not the operator). I think you can shoot excellent photos with both lenses and leave the rest of the discussion to the pixel-peepers.

 

Facts are: Pros for the Canon are the longer reach, faster autofocus (USM) and image stabilisation (IS). Pros for the Sigma are the price (here in Germany it's about 200 EUR cheaper), and the fact that it is one stop faster.

 

Since all things that cost money are a compromise between features, quality and price, I think the 17-85 IS is an excellent compromise for an all-round lens, but if you want to save $200, the Sigma is probably an excellent value, too.

 

Greetings, Christof

[yakim_peled1]

Only the very best (and obviously, the very expensive) lenses get 100% glowing reviews. All others have minor or major faults. The thing is, the minority or majority of these faults heavily depend on sample variation and the experience of the photographer.

 

Question is, what is good enough? The answer to this question varies from one photographer to the other. What is good enough for you?

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

 

FWIW, if I were to choose between the 17-85 and 17-70 I'd get the 17-85 because of the IS, the USM and the future compatibility.

[jim_moloney1]

I have the canon 17/85 IS it's ok no problems good walk around len's,The 17/85 and the 16/35L were the 2 lens I would take with me ontill I got a 24/70 f2.8L thats the one on my camera allmost all the time But you cant compare the 17/85 to the 24/70 or the 16/35...It's like a Porsche and a Chevy.

[jon_austin]

Compare the 17-85 to the following Canon lenses: 17-40, 24-70, 24-85, 24-105, and decide which is best for your needs, depending on the following criteria: focal length range, speed (maximum aperture), IS (or lack thereof), weight and price.

 

I started with the 24-85, passed on the 24-70, quickly added the 17-40, and upgraded the 24-85 to the 24-105 after its initial favorable reviews and the early flare problem was resolved. The 24-105 (on my 20D) is my preferred single-lens travel solution.

[ted_marcus1]

The Canon 17-85IS is a good lens. It's expensive and has a lot of distortion at the wide end. The free PTLens plug-in can improve the distortion.

 

You could keep your Sigma and get one of the ultrawide zooms (Canon 10-22, Tokina 12-24, Tamron 11-18). You'll get the wide angle end back and more, and you'll have the equivalent of 210mm at the long end. I have a Canon 28-135IS and a Tokina 12-24 for my Rebel XT. It's a very decent two-lens kit for travel. The image stabilization is very useful.

[peter_rowe]

Ewan,

I have the Canon 17-85mm IS on the 20D. I really like it. I bought a number of different lenses (Tamron 28-75mm Di...) and tested others before I finally arriving at the 17-85mm IS, thank goodness. I don't know if I have the best copy ever made but it is a very good lens. I tested the 17-40L by renting it for a week and the 17-85mm is extremely close in sharpness on my 20D. Maybe not as good to the edges wide open. I also have the 70-200mm F4 "L" and my 17-85mm IS is just as sharp at center. I also have the Canon 10-22mm and the 17-85 is sharper than it.

 

To me the 17-85mm is the perfect general purpose lens, it is a great range 28-138 equiv, not as wide as your 24mm end though. It is light weight, it has IS which is great, it has full time manual, and a non-rotating front. It does have distortion wide open and it does have some CA towards the edges but I am finding the RAW programs like Bibble now address specific lens problems like this.

 

I travel quite a bit and this year have been to Ireland, France, USA -- Big Sur, Yosemite San Diego... -- all taking lots of photos. I now use the 17-85mm for 90+ of my photo's. Even though I still bring the 10-22 I don't need it that often and I've stopped bringing the 70-200mm "L" altogether. You do have to remember the 17-85mm is an EF-S lens though so factor that in.

 

Maybe there's a way you could rent the 17-85mm IS for a few days and see what you think.

 

--Peter

[steve santikarn]

Your other option is the much more expensive and less zoom range EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS. When I want to travel light the 17-85 IS is the only lens I take, if I want more range then I add the 70-300 IS. Between these 2 lenses you are pretty well covered for all focal lengths that you are likely to use on your travels. Quality up to A4 print is just fine.

[dgmessenger]

I currently own the Canon 17-55, 17-85 and 24-105. All are great lenses.

Obviously, the 17-85 has the most issues among the three. For me, they are:

 

- more distortion wide open,

- very poor bokeh,

- slight less sharp

 

Of the issues, the biggest one I have a problem with is bokeh on the 17-85. However, this is usually only an issue when I am doing portrait work.

 

When traveling or walking around, I "would" and did prefer the 17-85 for its small size. The distortion/softness are not that bad and are correctable in photoshop.

 

However, since I now one the 17-55 and the 24-105, two rather expensive lenses, I find it quite difficult not to use them extensively and exclusively due to their price. I love the range of my 24-105 and the weight and wide focal length of the 17-55.

 

For these two expensive lenses, for walk around/travel (on my 30D), I find that:

- 24mm is not quite wide enough and

- 17mm is plenty wide enough.

- 55mm is hardly long enough, and

- 105mm is of decent reach.

 

A 17-135 F4 EFS IS USM would be a perfect lenses for me. Due to the EFS designation and F4 speed, I'm sure it would not be two large. I would think this is quite feasible for Canon and would be a killer lens. It would be the envy of so many, but I digress.

 

If I did not own the these expensive lenses, I would be in ignorant bliss with my 17-85.

 

And you know, ignorant bliss, aint that bad (so long as you're not headed toward some catastrophic event).

[ewanshears]

Thanks to all your comments chaps... been a great help... but i'm still struggling to come to a decision... i'm sure once i do i'll be happy. I wonder if anyone has any experience of the Sigma 17-70? I've heard it is good but bad copies are a-plenty! I should have mentioned that the 24-135 Sigma i currently own is for a Pentax fit. The 17-55 (canon) IS does look good but feel it may not be long enough... i guess this would be similar to 35mm kit lens in range? I'm pulling my hair out. Thank you again... why can't my fairy godmother appear with a 5D & 24-135...!

[john_bacheller]

<p>I have the 17-70 Sigma and it's a great lens- very sharp, light weight, has good build quality and good macro capability. It replaced a Canon 24-85 EF lens that was in every way inferior. The Sigma has no IS, which would be nice to have for shooting stationary objects in low light situations, but not great for capturing people or other moving objects.</p>