Buy a prime, or save up for the EF-S 17-55?

[jonathan_lui]

Currently, I have a EF-S 17-85. Yes, it has mixed reviews, but a most of those reviews compare this lens to

lenses that aren't even in the same price range. There probably isn't any other lens in that price range that has

a versatile focal-length range, IS, USM, decent build quality, and non-rotating front-element. I would still get

this lens separately from the 40D, if it did not already come as a kit-lens.

 

All that background info is just to show that I am not unhappy with this lens, however there are times when I

feel constrained by it's relatively small maximum aperture.

 

I'm thinking of buying the Sigma 30mm 1.4 to complement this lens in low-light. With that setup, I get extra 2-3

stops but only at 30mm.

 

On the other hand, I could sell the 17-85, add the money for the 30mm, and buy a EF-S 17-55. I get 1-2 extra

stops, but lose 30mm...

 

Any opinions?

[lukeap69]

How much do you need the 55 to 85 range? There are also mixed reviews with the Sigma 30 1.4 mainly the issue is regarding focusing and Sigma QC. However, I fell I got a very good one and very happy with it. 30mm is alright with me specially indoor as I find the 50 a bit tight (I have also Sigma 50 1.4). You can check with your 17-85 whether 30 is enough for your first prime.

[jonathan_lui]

I counted my photos from the 17-85, most of the photos are either 17 or 85mm, probably because they're the easiest to access. The rest of the photos are distributed fairly evenly across the middle range, with a higher than average spike around the 28-35mm range. A long time ago, I used a canon film-slr with a 50mm 1.8 lens, so I'm fairly comfortable with that focal-length.

[bjscharp]

I have the 30mm 1.4, and haven't felt the need for a standard zoom since. Get it, you might not even want the 17-55 anymore ;-)

[rainer_t]

Put it this way ... the 17-55 is something to replace the 17-85 (albeit you'll miss the tele range at times). The 30/1.4 is a nice add on to the 17-85. If you are pleased with what you get from the 17.85, why change it, just add the 30/1.4. (With the money left, you could even add a 50/1.8 and a 85/1.8 and you would still be within the same price range as the 17.55 is).

 

I own all these lenses (except the 17-55 IS). As much as I like the 17-85 as a alround lens, I take the primes for lowlight and for portrait.

[yannig]

17-55: This is my allround lens. In the beginning i was fighting buyers remorse, but that soon vanished. The 17-55 is my fastest, and sharpest lens. I think the 17-55 will give you better speed (focus wise and light gathering wise), and better sharpness! Get the hood!

 

For lowlight photography, i use the 85/1.8 and the 50/1.8. The extra stop and a third are worth it ...

 

Get all of them ;)

[tdigi]

Get 1 good lens over 2 decent lenses.

[jeff_higdon]

While I tend to agree with Tommy that one good lens (or one great lens such as the 17-55 f/2.8 IS) is better than two that are not so great, I would say if you are happy with the 17-85, as I am, try adding a prime or two and see where that gets you. I'd suggest both the 85mm f/1.8 (great portrait lens even on a crop body such as the 40D) and the relatively inexpensive Canon 35 f/2, also a very popular choice on this board. OK, by that point you have dropped another $560 USD or thereabouts but you have two lenses you will probably never sell (and, if you do, you'll lose very little of your investment) and the 17-85 that will still take more than 50% of your shots I am guessing. Then, if you are not happy you could sell the lot and get your 17-55 f/f2.8. However, there will be plenty of low light and portrait situations where you will be glad you have the two primes even if you do have the 17-55.

[jonathan_lui]

Thanks for all the reasonable responses! None of the lens-bashing common in other forums...

 

I think I'd probably go with the 30mm (or similar) prime. Right now, I'd find it more useful to complement my

17-85, rather than replacing it with a faster/sharper lens.