File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Current owner of a Canon 30D here, and in possession of an EF-S 17-85mm and 50mm/1.8. The 17-85 is a great and versatile upgrade to the original kit lens, and I'm looking for new toys to supplement / replace my current set.

I am not made of money. My camera gear is a sizeable part of my income. I shoot mostly walkaround photos; fairly limited nature scenery although those opportunities do pop up; I also attend concerts where a lowlight lens is useful. I notice I generally shoot on the wide end, and 85mm is a good amount of zoom for me. So:

17-55mm f/2.8 = DROOL
17-40mm f/4 L = Sell my 17-85 for this? It has better image quality but no IS
10-22mm = MOAR WIDE PLZ, this is looking very much like my next purchase when I save up
70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS (not DO) = looks nice for a telephoto lens that I probably won't use all that much

Thoughts?

also: tl;dr
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2006:04:26 22:58:08Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width640Image Height480
>> Anonymous
My take:

I got a tamron 17-50 f/2.8 instead of the canon equivalent... I compared them, and I'm happy with my purchase, and the money I saved. You should give it a try too, if you can test it out at a store.

Anyways, if third parties are out of option... the 17-55 wins hands down against the 17-40... double the light in, tad more zoom range, equivalent IQ, only tradeoffs are non-L quality build and no full frame support...

But if you feel like your current lens don't give you enough options on the wide end... do look more seriously at the 10-22. It's a great lens.

You said yourself 85mm is a good amount of zoom for you, skip the 70-300.
>> Anonymous
I bought the 17-55 and i love it, its sharp as hell, the IQ overall is great and it has some nice bokeh too

the is hasn't been too useful yet as it seems ppl don't wanna hold still for those low speed shots =/ but when they do hold still you can get some really nice shots in some pretty dark areas
>> Anonymous
>>64528
Seconding the Tamron 17-50/2.8. No IS, but it's small, fast, extremely sharp and reasonably-priced.
>> Anonymous
>>64523

Wow I'm in the same boat. I have an XTi though, and that 17-85 IS and the 50mm f/1.8.

I'm looking to sell my 17-85IS for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS as well, but more and more I think I'd rather just get a tripod since what I really want to do is more cityscape nightshots. I'd love the f/2.8 for playing with DOF and such, but it's hard to justify the $1000 for it.

Maybe when bonus time rolls around. :p
>> Anonymous
Avoid EF-S lenses. There's nothing wrong with the lenses themselves, but they're going to be dead weight in five years when Canon's line is all full-frame.
>> Anonymous
There's also the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5

It's reasonably priced, fast, sharp, and covers a nice range. And obviously, takes great pics with my 30D.
>> Anonymous
>>64579
This shit again?
Full-frame sensors are very expensive to produce, and there's currently no way around this unless the whole CMOS technology changes. Like the processors in PCs, which remain around 150mm2 since the 486s. There's no fucking way they'll upgrade even the sub-$1000 SLRs to full-frame in 5 years, and not many people really need this anyway.
Plus, many full-frame compatible lenses fail on full-frame cameras (2 stops of vignetting and 5-pixel wide CA on your L lens? It's more likely than you think)
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
As a proud owner of 30D, 17-85mm IS USM, 50mm f/1.8 II and 70-300mm IS USM, I would say that you either want something more wider than 17mm, or 70-300mm lens.
70-300 lens' image quality is superior. It's just rocks. And works as a great macro lens, too.

My next gear upgrade will be towars wide, though, maybe that'll come after I have saved enough money to 5D (or its successor).

>>64579
One should only avoid EF-S lenses if they're planning to upgrade to 1D line or 5D.
>> Anonymous
>>64579
I doubt Canon will erase APS-C cameras off their list. I mean, there *is* a market for people who want the 1.6x crop, and there are people who enjoy the fact that they can get images without any vignetting and CAs by taking advantage of full frame lenses' sweetspot. Also, your logic is flawed in the sense that it's not only the full frame sensors that get cheaper!
>> Anonymous
>>64591
Not everyone likes shooting wide. It's a personal style thing. If you go too wide, you have to get really close to your subject, and this removes your subject (which is magnified out of proportion) from the environment. I don't like the result that gives. But again, it's a personal style choice for me.

I'd rather use an EF28/2.8 on my XT. It makes a great, lightweight street camera. I am getting tempted by that Tamron 17-50 f2.8, though. Pretty compact and not too expensive for what it does. It looks to be a good street lens.
>> Anonymous
why spend 1200 bucks on a body and stick a cheap Tamron in front of it? Just buy a Canon lens.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
I have 11-18 and it is pretty useless for shooting anything other than landscape or architectual. I love it because thats the majority of my shooting but unless you want to be 1-2m away from anything you shoot (shooting skyscrapers from 3m away is weird¬!) there is no need to drop below your 17mm.

unless you are almost directly replacing a lense why get rid of it? spend the money on accessories instead.
>> Anonymous
>>64650
Gee, let's pay $700 more for pretty much the same optical quality and Canon branding! Don't you feel better about yourself now?

Well, he can get Canon, go for it, but if doubtful, the "cheap" lens won't disappoint him.

Are we here to take photos with appropriate tools or to look like we're using something good?
>> Anonymous
>>64656

>Gee, let's pay $700 more for pretty much the same optical quality and Canon branding! Don't you feel better about yourself now?

http://old.photodo.com/prod/lens/tamron.shtml
http://old.photodo.com/prod/lens/canon.shtml

Lenses run through the MTF machine at the Hasselblad factory. Granted, brand new lenses aren't listed, so maybe Tamron got much better over the last few years.
>> Anonymous
>>64658
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1755_28/index.htm

Of course this isn't the rule regarding Tamron, but this particular lens is quite a gem.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>64650
Correct aperture, focus and postprocessing often matter more than the lens itself, so you won't notice a 20% difference in MTF in real photos. Hell, some CA and vignetting correction in Photoshop and even the much-maligned Nikon 18-135 becomes nice! Plus expensive isn't always good; I find Canon L and Olympus SHG glass to be vastly overpriced if weatherproofing isn't necessary.
>> Anonymous
OP here. Couple of great suggestions so far. I really don't have any problems with EF-S lenses. There's always a market for used equipment. I don't have a problem with 3rd party either but I don't mind paying a slight premium for a Canon.

Basically I'm looking for a bit better image quality on the wide end, but I'm trying not to overlap too much (i.e. own both a 17-55 and 17-85), so if I get a wide zoom, I'll probably find a way to hawk the 17-85 for something else.
>> Anonymous
>>64575

Yeah, I splooged on the 30D pretty much just as it came out (I was originally aiming for a 20D). If I had known sooner about the XTi, I probably would've held out for that, though I do love the feel of the 30D
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>64673

I have once held 400D, and god, it feels awful compared to 30D. It's tiny as hell (won't fit my hand, and I don't even have big hands)! Limited, or otherwise unusable controls, short battery life, dark and small viewfinder, etc.

30D really was worth the extra money. I wouldn't think twice which camera to buy.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>64678
You know, I've never really understood that. I've heard the "It feels too small, and I don't even have big hands!" complaint a *lot*.

I have *huge* hands, and the Rebel XTi/400D feels perfectly fine to me. Thumb on the back next to the Ev-comp button. Index finger on top for the shutter button and adjustment dial. Middle and ring finger on the front, pinky on the bottom. Perfect. Certainly smaller than my old film Rebel, but I don't really see that as a disadvantage.
>> ????? !wAHA/GeRU.
Actually, I agree with eku. The grip on the 400D/XTi feels awful to me, maybe not because it's too small but because the design hurts my hand. The 20D/30D feels much better, and the Nikons that I have held (D2X, D200, D80, D70, D50, D40/D40X, as well as Nikon film bodies) all felt better. Even the non-molded grips such as those found on the Nikon FM2 series (even the tiny Olympus E-410) feel much better... to me. The grip is all a matter of personal taste. What fits me won't fit everyone. And besides, my hands are small.
>> Anonymous
>>64681
I have an XT and i thought it was fine despite everyone's complaining about it being too small, but after handling one with a battery grip mine doesn't feel as comfortable as i thought it did =/
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
I have the Rebel XT and even with my girly asian hands, it feels small. My pinky goes slightly off the bottom, so I guess it can be fixed by buying the battery grip. But I liked holding the 30D and kinda wished I had the money at the time for one.