Experts opinion(s)?

[iainwilson]

Hi all,

 

I?ve been playing in the digital SLR market for about a year now. I upgraded

about 8months ago my EOS350D to a 20D and its been a great improvement. I?m

now out to get some new glass for it.

 

I?ve got a Sigma 28-105mm Aspherical IF 3.8-5.6, which I have been shooting

with for some time. Its an OK lens but I feel that its the week part of my

camera and I?m looking for a good replacement. I normally shoot outside,

family holidays, skiing, motor racing, and some abstract stuff. I also do some

work indoors so need it to be good enough for that. About 3 months ago I went

all out and got myself a 70-200 F2.8 L IS USM canon and love every minute of

it, so ideally I think I?m looking at something in the 17-100 area.

 

I have two lenses in mind, but would really value some views on these two, to

help me decide:

 

Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8 L USM

Or

Canon EF-S 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS USM (is the IS really necessary on this?)

 

Any pointers or suggestions to other lenses are very welcome.

 

Many Thanks in advance,

Iain

[tapani]

If I had only the 70-200/2.8 and 20D, the next lens I'd get would be the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS, or if budget was tight, the 17-85 (yes, I think IS is really useful with these, unless you're a tripod-lover, in which case try the 17-40).

 

The 24-70 is a fine lens but not wide enough, IMHO (of course together with the 10-22 it'd make a great though heavy kit). Just how wide you need is of course something only you can tell.

[sandy_labana]

I would recomend 17-85. IS is very useful. It is an excellent walk around lens and

compliments well the 70-200 you already have. 17-55 2.8IS is outstanding lense but it is

more expensive. 24-70 is abosolutely top quality in every respect, it is expensive and very

heavy. Not easy to carry around. Sandy

[digitmstr]

>>I?ve been playing in the digital SLR market <<

 

As in buying stock? ;P

 

I love the 24-70L as a standard zoom. Excellent quality glass in every respect. If had one lens only it would be this one.

[iainwilson]

Thanks so much for the insights, they are really useful.

 

I'm now even more unsure, not sure if thats a good thing or not!

 

Budget is not the main concern, i'd rather pay a bit more and have a better lens, than save a few pounds and always be wondering what it would have been like if i'd bought the other one!

 

I'm swaying away from the 24-70L through nothing more than the wide angle i'd want. But am so unsure about not getting an L lens.

 

I'm going to see what others have to say before taking the plunge!

[sgpix]

Another thought: if you are a serial updater and imagine yourself going to a full frame DSLR anytime soon, you might want to consider this with your glass choice (as lenses tend to outprice bodies!)...

 

With this in mind, a few more considerations:

 

* L lenses will be more important on a FF body from a quality point of view (FF uses entire lens rather than the centre 'crop')

* EF-S lenses don't work on any existing FF Canon bodies (I don't think).. certainly not the 5D anyway. Of course, the 4D/3D/whatever may be able to use them...

* You effective focal lengths will change between a 1.6 crop and a FF body. eg. If you LOVE the 50mm length on a crop body, you may find yourself looking for something like an 85mm if you go FF...

 

Good luck and enjoy

[robert lee]

Hmmm.... I'd suggest the 50mm f1.8. Get this lens for the price of a dinner at a decent restaurant.

 

What you really haven't tried are large aperture lenses. Find a cooperative model, look for some subdued window light, focus on the eyes, and shoot wide open. You'd be salivating after the 85mm f1.2II before you know it.

[gdanmitchell]

First, the 50mm f/1.8 suggestion is fine... once you have all the other lenses you need or

if you are a big portrait photographer. While it is an excellent piece of glass at an

outstanding price, it is a "portrait" length short telephoto on your camera.

 

That said, it can "fill the gap" between excellent zooms like the 70-200 and the 17-40 L

lenses.

 

Have you thought about the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens? I don't own this lens but I hear

nothing but good comments about it.

 

If you are really in need of the quality of the 17-200mm f/2.8 that you already own (e.g. -

if you can tell the difference between the results it produces and the results produces by

lesser lenses) you are not likely to be happy with the EFS 17-85mm IS lens. I did own this

lens for some time, and it is fine for what it does. It is a decent walk-around lens for a

crop sensor body and it can produce decent but not stellar (and not L quality) prints. Read

up on this lens before making that choice.

 

I'm tempted to say that either you bought more lens then you needed with the 70-200 or

you are about to buy less lens than you need with the 17-85.

[bobatkins]

I'd go with the 17-85 (in fact I did). While "L" glass is better, you can digitally correct the 17-85 images if need be. It's not like film where you're stuck with what the lens initially records.

 

Unless you're regularly making 11x14 prints from your work, I'm not sure you'll see the full benefits of the "L" lens.

 

The 17-85 has some limitations (see http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef-s_17-85_review.html), notably there's vignetting and distortion at 17mm. However both are fairly easily corrected digitally. It's positives are that it covers a wide range (including true wideangle) and the IS allows use in light that would require an f2.8 or even an f2 lens without IS (as long as you're not trying to freeze action).

 

The EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS would be even better if you don't mind the reduced zoom range and paying double the price.

[roger_smith4]

Or get the Tamron 17-50 which as an f2.8 lens without IS and less fringing and distortion than the Canon based on Bob's article. It's also available used in good condition at keh.com which is where I bought mine.

 

I'd then look at a longer lens with IS- take a look at Bob Atkins' page on Canon lenses.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8 L USM Or Canon EF-S 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS USM </i></p><p>Why are you comparing those two lenses and not the EF 24-70mm to the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8?</p>

[William Michael]

`I also do some work indoors so need it to be good enough for that.`

 

If translated this means: `it needs to be fast enough for that`, then such criterion rules out the Canon EF-S 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS US, which will be way way too slow.

 

WW

[iainwilson]

Thanks again all, this is really pricless advice.

 

Dan.

 

?I'm tempted to say that either you bought more lens then you needed with the 70-200 or you are about to buy less lens than you need with the 17-85.? To be honest, this was a spur of the moment purchase, I needed a longish zoom lens to do some motor racing work for a friend, so after a few reviews I bought the 2.8L IS USM 70-200, like you say its a lot of lens, and most of the time it does stay in the case! For this reason I think your right an L series might be more than I need!

 

Bob,

 

?I'd go with the 17-85 (in fact I did).? I think this is where I?m going to go too, but I?m a little concerned over the speed, the 15-55mm would be great, but again I think I?d be missing that little gap between that the start of the 70-200. Now saying that, the F2.8 would be more useful for the dull weather we get in Britain? Its a tuff one!

 

William,

 

?If translated this means: `it needs to be fast enough for that`, then such criterion rules out the Canon EF-S 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS US, which will be way way too slow? that's my worry too, I do try and get out and have a good light, but here in Britain its almost always dark and dull so the speed is very important.

 

Who knows maybe I?ll have to get two lenses to get the best of both worlds, just must let the misses read this!

 

Thanks again all.

[iainwilson]

To put another spin on things, whats the general thoughts on this Canon EF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM? In line with the others, I don't plan on going FF (eos 5) anytime in the next few years!

 

This has the L stamp, and IS, but its only F4, will it be fast enough?

[steve_dunn2]

<p>You currently have a 28-105/3.8-5.6, and a couple of the points/questions above could probably be answered by your experiences with this lens.</p>

 

<p>You are concerned about the speed of the 17-85. To within a reasonable approximation, it's the same speed as your 28-105. Is your 28-105 too slow and, if so, just a little or a lot? If it's not too slow, the 17-85 isn't, either. If it's just a little too slow, then perhaps the 17-85 will be but the 24-105 might be OK; it's about the same speed at the wide end and a stop faster at the long end. If it's a lot too slow, you need either an f/2.8 zoom (such as the 24-70 or 17-55), or need to be looking at prime lenses, since zooms don't come faster than f/2.8.</p>

 

<p>You're also looking at something in the 17-100 range, yet you currently don't have 17; you only have 28. Is 28 wide enough? If not, how much wider do you need to go? 24 is somewhat wider than 28; 17 is a lot wider than 28. It's a big difference and you need to try to nail down how wide you need. If you're an old 35mm film user, you'll recognize that 28 on your digital bodies is barely wider than a traditional 50; 24 is close to what 35 was; 17 is what 28 was. Personally, I found 28 on film to be very useful, and therefore wouldn't want to be without 17 on digital (so when I went digital, I added the 17-40/4L USM to my kit to cover the wide end).</p>

 

<p>Personally, I find IS very useful, even on a wide-angle lens. My most-used lens on film for several years was the 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM, and I used IS throughout the entire range. I miss IS at the wide end on my current equipment, and if I decide to stay with 1.6-crop, I plan on trading in the 17-40 on the 17-55/2.8 IS USM, with IS being one of the main reasons for the trade (I didn't buy the 17-55 when I bought my DSLR because the 17-55 didn't exist yet).</p>

[iainwilson]

Thanks one and all for the advice.

 

I've taken the chance to test out two of these lenses from a local camera shop near where i live. At the moment i've got the 24-70 F2.8 L lens at home, i plan on making the most of that and getting out to shoot some things. Then i'm going to try the 24-105 F4 IS lens.

 

I've had to pay for the use of these, but both are second hand and i'd rather play then pay, that pay and not get much play!

 

They want ?500 for the 24-70 F2.8 L and about ?400 for the 24-105 F4. I'm planning on part exing my Sigma, and they've offered ?50. Is this a good offer?

 

Thanks again.

Iain