File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS

Might buy one to replace my kit lens (zoom) and fit on my 1.6 crop camera (i realise now that EF-EFS = no wide angles).

Suggestions/ideas/pros+cons plz.
>> Anonymous
canon has the 10-22 EFS which is still pretty wide on the crop sensor.
>> Anonymous
This is true, and I've seen a second hand one in a local shop for £195
>> Anonymous
mine was very meh...
yes it had a great range, but the aperture was very disapointing, the distortion and the actual image quality were big let downs.
i now shoot primes and love it!

what about something like:
tamron 17-50 f/2.8
sigma 18-200 Xx-Xx and they even have an OS(optically stabilised, same as canons IS)
and i think tokina or tamron has an 18-250?

dunno about prices in other countries. but consider them, cos, as you suggested the 17-85 you clearly arent that worried about sharpness etc?
one advantage of the 17-50 is that its renowned as being pretty sharp.
>> Anonymous
No no I do like sharpness! Basically, I want great quality pictures, a fantastic aperture range and a huge zoom range!

Ok, so it'll never happen, but I'd like something I can use as a zoom (replacing my fag/takesuglyshit kit lens) but takes good pics.
>> Anonymous
get the tamron then. or shoot primes.

i have a sigma 30 f/1.4 and canon f/1.4 and i LOVE using them, it really is a joy(thats such a gay word!) to use them and they offer so much more in terms of creativity r.e DOF and shooting in low light etc.

id say, get the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and if you can, a canon 50 f/1.8 to learn about DOF and low light etc...

otherwise, go primes. it takes a while to build up a collection though. good learning time though! and it helps you figure out exactly what focal lengths you NEED!(not want!)
using 50mm 1.8 as a base is good...
"do i need wider?, do i need longer? do i need sharper?, do i need larger aperture for lower light and even smaller DOF?"

hope that helps.
for more technical aspects on lenses, see:
slrgear.com
photozone.de
>> Anonymous
It's a good lens and has nice features for the price. It's a good step up from the kit lens. Good for walk about, slightly wider and longer, good for hand holding and general purpose. The only downside to it is the aperture not being a constant 2.8 like some of the pricer Canon zooms. Whether or not you feel this is a problem is something you'd know best.

If you feel you really need that narrow DOF or a wider aperture for whatever reason then the 2.8 zooms might be an idea, but you'll be losing the IS unless you want to pay more for one of the rare third part lenses with it.

The 10-20 is very wide on the crop sensor. There are some similar wide zooms from other makers. There's an 8mm third party prime too, I believe.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>92595If you feel you really need that narrow DOF or a wider aperture for whatever reason then the 2.8 zooms might be an idea, but you'll be losing the IS unless you want to pay more for one of the rare third part lenses with it.

Hello Anon, meet the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.

It is sharper than a few L lenses and is sharper than a 50mm f/1.4 at 2.8.
>> Anonymous
>>92602

I've got that very lens and I love it, but it's also a much higher price. The OP didn't set a figure, but I'm trying to work within the same ballpark budget as that lens for the guy. I didn't think it'd be right to start suggesting something that costs twice as much.
>> Anonymous
>>92603

Not aimed at OP but to the guy I quoted. He said you needed third party if you wanted IS and 2.8.

Yeah, I'm a stickler like that.
>> Anonymous
>>92606

Oooooh, you're a stickler.

That 17-55mm is a dream though. It's like an EF-S L.
>> Anonymous
>>92578

I don't own the tamron 17-50 2.8 but I've tried it out and researched it up.

From all the figures and charts out there it is an INCREDIBLE deal. Very sharp. Good size and weight. Good build quality.

Only one big problem. People reported that it makes a whining sound when zooming. Wondering how much this would bother me I went to the store and tested it out.

It is really. REALLY. irritating. The whine is loud and jarring, and it happens every time you zoom. And if you zoom between the two extreme focal points?

guh.

I hate to say it but I personally can't recommend buying this lens because of how annoying the sound is.
>> Anonymous
>>92612

I hadn't heard about that noise issue being so bad before. Are they all like that or maybe you had a bad copy? That's a real shame if it's putting you off of good glass, but I can see how it can get to you or worry you about it disturbing subjects.
>> Anonymous
they are all like that.
>> Anonymous
>>92613

they are all like that. Every person who writes about it confirms it.

Yeah. It sucks. The lens itself is great... but HOLY CRAP is it annoying to use.
>> Anonymous
The Canon 17-55mm FTW, really.

The only gripe is that you're spending 1,000$ but don't get the build quality of an L lens even though the price tag and optical quality is there. But it's still well built.

And the whole EF-S not compatible with full frame bodies sucks as well.
>> Anonymous
>>92616

Also the fact you don't get the lens hood or lens pouch with it either. The lens hood is overpriced. I can get ten knock-off versions of the hood that look identical for the price of one official one. Considering the official one is made of crappy plastic anyway, it's a no brainer to save the money. At least when my Chinese knock off hood gets worn and loose or cracked I can still buy nine more and not be out of pocket.
>> Anonymous
Peleng 8mm fisheye?
>> Anonymous
>>92668
trying to get my hands on one of these babies via a friend in Soviet Russia - Fish eyes YOU!!!
>> Anonymous
>>92719
uh, good luck with that, 8mm Pelengs are in short supply and sell for ridiculous prices even in Belarus where the factory is located.
And from my experience, 95% of people who buy a circular fisheye lens use it once a year or don't use it at all after the novelty wears off. So think carefully unless you're sure you belong in the other 5% :D
>> Anonymous
I have the same lens and it's good.

It's a little slow though. f/4 isn't gonna get you those MySpace shots, if that's what you're after.

I want to upgrade to the 17-55 myself, but it's a lot of usbux so I'm holding off for... a while.
>> Anonymous
>>92743

The 17-40 is a nice lens too if the 17-55 is a little out of your reach. It's not as fast, but still an impressive lens. The IS version of the kit lens is a slight boost over the old one with that addition. Just a thought.
>> Anonymous
There is actually one selling near for me ~300 dollars. do I get it? (Peleng8mm fisheye, I mean; it's craigslist, so it might be a scam, or it might be someone who doesn't know the value)
>> Anonymous
>>92883

This review of it is good and worth reading if you haven't seen this one already: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/peleng_8_35/index.htm

According to that it should be about $150
>> Anonymous
>>92884

I meant $150+, but read the review for the full scoop. It's a good site and has sample photos.

It's a very limited use lens. Be sure you'll not just use it for a week and put it away forever.
>> Anonymous
Thanks for that review, anon. Certainly won't be buying it at that price, but damn, if I ever have the extra cash to blow, I might go for it.