File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Gearfag here, does anyone on /p/ have the canon 17-85 lens and what do they think about it? Is it worth getting?
>> Anonymous
Don't have one, but it's a very common starter lens
>> Anonymous
i keep hearing people re-sell them to buy something else.
not very good in low light.

get either tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or sigma 24-60 f/2.8
>> Anonymous
had it.
sold it.

not impressed with barrel distortion, speed or sharpness.

also, never really felt the need for the IS.

as pre previous post, get the tamron 17-50 or sigma 18-50. renowned for better IQ and of course theyre a lot faster, though at a trade of AF speed and build quality..
>> Anonymous
It sucks for the money. If it were $200 it might be worth it but at $400+ it's a ripoff. Tarmon 17-50 f2.8 is the way to go or if you wanna drop a grand get the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.
>> Anonymous
18-55 IS is superior.

Srsly.
>> Anonymous
I have the 17-55 2.8 is usm and am very happy with it. its the lens that gets the most use of the 4 that I own.

Other lens's have their use but the 17-55 is a great all purpose lens.
>> Anonymous
lol @ people buying crop lenses

enjoy your $1000 paper weights when everyone will be rocking full frame next year
>> Anonymous
>>223953
thank you for the kind words, that copypasta is so often repeated here in /p/ every time this particular crop lens is brought up its. Just knowing that a /b/ skilled troll is jealous of the lens makes me happy.

secondly I don't really care what other people are using or will be using tomorrow, I very much enjoy my crop lens made specifically for the camera I currently use it on.

again I thank you
>> Anonymous
>>223970

no offense but i don't think anyone is jealous of the 17-85

nothing wrong with liking it but it's far from an enviable lens
>> Anonymous
he was referring to the 17-55 2.8
>> Anonymous
>>224028
>>224029
samefag
>> Anonymous
>>224030

faggot with the 17-85
>> Anonymous
>>224028
>>224029
>>224038
samefag
>> Anonymous
1) Buy/steal:

Tamron 90mm f/2.8 (for macro shit/portraits)
Canon 200mm f/2.8 L (for distant shit, like sports and nature)
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (for other shit, like indoors)

2) Piss and shit all over your other lenses.
>> Anonymous
the 200 2.8 tempts me very much, But I don't know if it will be a wise choice to be fixed at 200.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>224062
at 200 you'd find things are still not going to be close enough, get a pair of 1.4x TCs instead (stacking them is sometimes better than a 2x)
>> Anonymous
>>224089

said Butterfly, resident professional sport photographer, working on a A100, no less
>> Anonymous
>>224126
Your point being?
>> Anonymous
>>224128

lurk
more
>> Butterfy !xlgRMYva6s
>>224126
Using a 100-300 trying to shoot surfers was pretty much impossible. If anyone remembers that thread, those were taken 100-150 and they were RIGHT NEXT TO ME, the rest of the entire beach was too far away to get anything impressive.
>> Anonymous
>>224051
Why the 3 different brands?
>> Anonymous
i'm not him but

the tamron 90 is like, one of the best macro lenses ever made in the history of nascar

the sigma 30/1.4, because there's nothing like it

the canon 200, because it's the best tele canon has ever made in the history of canon

although i may be confusing it with the 180 or the 200/1.8 i am not sure