Talk to me about these Canon lenses

[JABB]

I am looking to replace my Sigma 18 - 125 lens for a Canon IS lens.
I have a short list with the 17-55 F2.8 way out top, but probably too expensive.
The others are
18-135 F3.5 - 5.6 is
18-55 F3.5 - 5.6 is
17 - 85 F4 - 5.6 is

Out of these 3, the 17-85 seems the best on paper, but will I suffer from a high F4?
I want a good sharp IS walk about lens. Body 20D
Over to you....

[TallMark]

JABB said:

I want a good sharp IS walk about lens. Body 20D

Can you stretch to a 15-85 EF-S?

[RobDickinson]

Honestly all 3 of those are relativly low end on IQ, the 18-135 is likely the poorest, the 17-85 the middle one but with the best build.

Theres better choices out there.

[Mr E Driver]

IIWY I would buy the 24-105 and then the 10-22 when funds allow. You won't need to upgrade.

[RobDickinson]

24-105L is hugely expensive (in comparison) and IMO not an ideal focal length on a crop.

17-70 OS sigma or 17-50f2.8 tamron (non VC) are top quality budget lenses.

[S47]

In your case its a no brainer:-
The EFS 18-55 'IS' f3.5-5.6 is the only efs lens worth considering, the others are Crap in comparison.
Lucky for you its also the cheapest [£55 or so on ebay] so I suggest you pop the rest of your cash in the piggy bank and save up for a 85mm F1.8 which is a real bargain and excellent on a crop 1.6x body should you require a short tele lens

[havoc]

RobDickinson said:

24-105L is hugely expensive (in comparison) and IMO not an ideal focal length on a crop.

17-70 OS sigma or 17-50f2.8 tamron (non VC) are top quality budget lenses.

Go with this suggestion. This was my shortlist when replacing the 18-55 kit-lens a few years back...and I've been very happy with the Tamron. Extra reach of the Sigma might be nice though...

[JABB]

TallMark said:

JABB said:

I want a good sharp IS walk about lens. Body 20D

Can you stretch to a 15-85 EF-S?

Not new, but as it is a new-ish lens, I doubt I would find one S/H
I had almost decided on the 17-85 as it gets good reviews in the press, but you guys have turned that around a bit.
I thought the Sigma and Tamron lenses were softer than the Canon. The 17-85 gets good sharp reviews, with one even saying it is not far off an L.

[havoc]

JABB said:

I thought the Sigma and Tamron lenses were softer than the Canon. The 17-85 gets good sharp reviews, with one even saying it is not far off an L.

Rubbish.

The 17-85 is the cropped-sensor equivalent of my 28-135 (virtually the same lens), and it's got questionable CA at the very least.

The Tamron is sharper than a razor-blade that's just graduated from Cambridge with a double-first...unfortunately the build-quality is 'just enough', whereas the Canons are actually pretty good.

[flat-planedCrank]

JABB said:

TallMark said:

JABB said:

I want a good sharp IS walk about lens. Body 20D

Can you stretch to a 15-85 EF-S?

Not new, but as it is a new-ish lens, I doubt I would find one S/H
I had almost decided on the 17-85 as it gets good reviews in the press, but you guys have turned that around a bit.
I thought the Sigma and Tamron lenses were softer than the Canon. The 17-85 gets good sharp reviews, with one even saying it is not far off an L.

Could that quote about 'not being far off an L' be about the 17-55? Its pretty well thought of...

Here is a 17-85 (on a 350D) review, and on a 50D here as well.


Cheers.

Cheers.

[JABB]

flat-planedCrank said:

JABB said:

TallMark said:

JABB said:

I want a good sharp IS walk about lens. Body 20D

Can you stretch to a 15-85 EF-S?

Not new, but as it is a new-ish lens, I doubt I would find one S/H
I had almost decided on the 17-85 as it gets good reviews in the press, but you guys have turned that around a bit.
I thought the Sigma and Tamron lenses were softer than the Canon. The 17-85 gets good sharp reviews, with one even saying it is not far off an L.

Could that quote about 'not being far off an L' be about the 17-55? Its pretty well thought of...

Here is a 17-85 (on a 350D) review, and on a 50D here as well.


Cheers.

Cheers.

Hmm, this is getting me nowhere. They like it here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-E...

[Simond11]

I might have a EF-S 17-85 F4-5.6 for sale after a recent upg to a 24-70 L 2.8. If you interested PM me. I bought it November last year.
Simon

[stigmundfreud]

I have to say the 28-105L is a bit of a let down. It is a good lens but it is not a wow lens, not like others I have. The non-L 85mm 1.8 is by far better with IQ. I used to have a cheap sigma 24-135 which I paid 90 quid for new, the IQ was every bit on par with the Canon L at a fraction of the cost, just some food for thought

[xrrr]

I had the 17-85mm and sold it to buy a 17-55mm f2.8.

The 17-85 had really bad distortion and CA at 17mm.

The 17-55mm is pin sharp, the extra aperture really helps in low light and I have not regretted spending the extra money.

The only minor fault of the 17-55mm is that when the lens hood is attached it makes the camera look huuuuuge. If you are a photo subject it can be quite intimidating!

I would save up a bit longer and get the 17-55mm.

[RobDickinson]

mmm 17-55 aaaahg