File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
What does /p/ think of this lens?

I'm looking to buy it, since I have a little extra cash right now. My camera's a Canon EOS 400D (Digital Rebel XTi), I've currently got the kit lens (18-55mm no IS, no USM) and the f/1.8 50mm EF lens.
I've looked at a few different lenses, but this one seems best for now since it's pretty much a souped up version of the lens I have now, only slightly more telephoto and a lot more zoom, plus with IS and USM.

Thoughts?

(link: http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Zoom_Lenses/EF_1785mm_f45IS_USM/ind
ex.asp?ComponentID=311277)
>> Anonymous
Oh, I forgot to post the lens info itself:
EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
>> Anonymous
17-85/4-5.6 IS is a good lens, but like all Canon IS lenses, it's a bit overpriced.

Do you really need an upgrade to your kit lens? I don't know what kind of photography you're doing, but maybe it would be more interesting to get something different, like a wide-angle lens?
>> Macheath
>>55648
Well, it's an EF-S lens, so if you're planning on upgrading to a body that doesn't accept them, it won't be usable.
>> Anonymous
>>55658
I don't really have any plans on upgrading since I've only fairly recently got this camera, and it's about as much as I want to be paying for a camera right now anyway.
>> Anonymous
i have that lens, and i fakken love it. Is is nice, focus ring is rugged. Not like kit lenses that should be thrown in a wall immediately. Thats my humble opinion. that lens does some barrel roll but is rarely a problem..
>> Anonymous
>>55980
I think you meant DISTORTION. That's 4chan for you.
>> Anonymous
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=222&sort=7&cat=27&page=3
>> Anonymous
>>55648

Zooms sucks.
>> Anonymous
Good lens and high image quality at 85mm, but if you got a bit more money to burn... I would highly recomend a EF-S 17-55.
>> Anonymous
Why does zoom sucks?
I'm also thinking of buying a new lens to my canon 400D. I'm searching for a lens with a bit of a zooming ability, because he kit lens zoom sucks. I'm thinking of buying something from sigma or tamron any advices /p/?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>56195
Zoom lenses usually have smaller apertures, slightly more geometric and chromatic distortions and slightly less sharpness than prime lenses of comparable focal lengths and quality. Gotta pay something for the versatility.

However, don't listen to prime junkies who think that all zoom lenses suck. Even quite bad distortions can be easily corrected in photoshop, so that leaves only sharpness and aperture. For more expensive lenses (say, $300+), sharpness isn't much of an issue too - they are all more than enough for a 10MP sensor if used correctly. So that leaves only aperture, and while wider aperture is very good, it doesn't always outweigh the lack of zoom.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>56200
QFT. I'm a prime junkie, but the versatility of a zoom is made of win. Just wish I could get an f/1.8 zoom.
>> Anonymous
>>56195

Don't listen to zoom fanatics AND Photoshop/DxO freaks.
They're the worst.
They speak about the benefits of technology, but their commercial lies omit the fact that all they try to sell you kills your creativity.

In a nutshell : use this and you'll soon become a useless geeky ""photographer"". Too bad.
>> pixle !YlHXuPBxBQ
>>56200
the lens on that camera actually costs $2.5k+ >.>
>> Anonymous
>>56204
Oh shush. Some zoom lenses are perfectly capable. 1% distortion going to kill your day?

If you don't want to keep switching lens when you're in need of several lens lenghts, you can use a good zoom. Pros do it. Minor distortion isn't worth the trouble of switching between primes, granted a good enough zoom, really.

The lens at hand isn't really the best though, the most acclaimed lenses for normal use are the 17-50 f2.8 from tamron (you might get a dud this way, this can be solved if you can test the lens at a retailer, though...) and the 17-55 IS from canon. One costs $400, the other double that, or more.
>> Anonymous
Looks like everyone's saying this has massive barrel distortion at 17mm, and less build quality than an L (well, duh) but that generally it seems an OK lens.
For the prime lovers, I do have the 50mm f/1.8 which I use for portraits, it's an awesome lens but sometimes I like a little more zoom :P

(And I did recently get a Sigma ?-200mm zoom that'l only work at the lowest aperture or it freezes the camera from my father's old stuff, which is great when I want _lots_ of zoom I guess, but it's a bit heavy to lug around)
>> Anonymous
>>56215
I don't talk about optical qualities here. It's a matter of behavior. Of photographic philosophy.
>> Macheath
>>56195
I'm planning on buying the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 eventually myself. I think Sigma has a similar offering that doubles as a macro lens as well, but IIRC, it has poor CA performance.
>> Anonymous
What lens would give a reasonable zoom but also good quality of photo?
>> Anonymous
>>56593
Actually, skill of the photographer determines much more than the quality of the lens. Almost any lens from a respectable manufacturer will give you reasonably good quality unless
a) you don't know how to use it; or
b) you're really nitpicky; or
c) you need maximum image quality for some very specific purpose.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
My $90 28-200mm Tamron zoom gives me perfectly acceptable photos. The limiting aspect of the lens isn't in the quality of the image, it's in the slow aperture. If I were to upgrade, I'd either get more fast primes, or a zoom lens with a constant f/2.8 aperture (a.k.a. expensive pro glass).

If you have to choose a lens, get one with IS and the zoom range you want. Don't worry too much about pixelpeeping review sites. You're not going to photograph resolution charts, you're going to photograph moments.
>> Anonymous
I'm thinking of buying sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 macro due to the fact it has macro option and is affordable. Comparing to the kit lens it should solve my zooming probs