Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 4, 2007, 3:22 PM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48
Default

17-85 is far worst choice regarding it's optical quality. The best optical performance for money you get with Sigma 17-70. It almost matches twice as expensive lenses. You could go for 17-40L for it's build quality, or 16-35L f2.8, but it's very expensive. 17-55 is on of the best Canon lenses ever, despite dusk sucking issue and high price.

If you can live without USM and FTM ring, go for Sigma. Very solid lens, and beautiful range for crop sensor (27-112mm on Canon).
nidza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2007, 12:43 AM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 69
Default

.
Welcome back.

While everyones preferences & style are somewhat different, personally, I'd skip the "standard zoom lens" & just do a 12 - 24mm Tokina (or 10 - 22mm Canon) & the macro (std to med tele) of your preference.

If you still want a "standard" in your kit, why not choose a fast 24mm f1.4 or a 35mm f1.4 Canon (or maybe the 30mm f1.4 Sigma)?

:|
fastglass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2007, 9:28 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
D.Ann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,932
Default

Hi, I have a 30D and have the 17-40L and 100 macro. Love them both! Donna
D.Ann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2007, 2:57 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6
Default

Well, i ended up changing my mind a bit. I decided that I don't really need the ultra-wide range, so a 16, or 17 mm lens would be wide enough for my needs. For a standard lens i am thinking of 17-40, the new 16-35, or a wide prime. However, I decided to hold off with the purchase until the reviews of new 16-35 are out.

So today I ordered from Amazon:

30d body
100 macro
300 F4 IS + 1.4 TC

For now my 'standard' lens will be a 50mm 1.8 prime that I have from my previous film camera.

I am very excited and can't wait until I get my birthday present.


PS
In the process there was one other possibility that I seriously considered for a 'standard' lens: the 24-70 F2.8. I ultimately decided against it for 2 reasons: 24mm not being quite wide enough, and its weight - prefer something lighter for hiking trips and such

zgredek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2007, 3:41 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
D.Ann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,932
Default

Please let me know how you like the 300mm with the converter. I am using the 70-200mm f/4L IS with the converter now. donna
D.Ann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2007, 9:55 PM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
By the way I misread - i thought you were considering the 17-85.* I would suggest that lens over the 17-55 - better performance and more reach.
How do you figure???? Yes, it has more reach, but so does a $200 13x brand X zoom. As for performance, the 17-85 is OK, but as I see it, it isn't even in the same class as the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens. Are you thinking about the 18-55 kit lens?? If not, please elaborate.

As for dust issues with the 17-55, some people report dust issues, and most seem to have no problem at all. I don't have any problem with dust, and I wonder if there was a bad lens run at one time. My 17-55 f/2.8 is my standard lens, and it is used in dust, drizzle, sandy beaches, and anywhere else I might be shooting. No dust problems at all. I have owned it since last October, and use it daily. It's S/N is 20600622. I'd like to compare the production numbers of lenses that have the mystery dust problem.

That said, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is an L lens in every respect other than weight, color, rain proofing (not all L lenses are sealed), and the lack of panning mode for the IS. I don't think there is a better lens in it's focal range for a 1.6 crop camera. Even compared to lenses with a longer reach, the 17-55 is at the head of the class.


Volk
Volk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2007, 10:12 PM   #17
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

yep I was thinking of the 18-55 kit lens. Sorry for confusion.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2007, 7:40 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
wsandman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 318
Default

The 70 - 200 IS F4 L is a very good quality lens (expensive). I already have the earlier non IS modelmodel. I also have the Sigma 100 - 300 EX F4. It is very sharp and takes the Sigmaor Canon 1.4 converters very well. Unfortunately this lens got such high ratings Sigma recently increased the price from 899 to 1099.
wsandman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2007, 8:47 AM   #19
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

wsandman1 wrote:
Quote:
Unfortunately this lens got such high ratings Sigma recently increased the price from 899 to 1099.
Sad, isn't it? I can't say I blame them, but it still stinks.

JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2007, 9:24 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
wsandman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 318
Default

John,

They also increased the price of the Sigma120 - 300 2.8 by $300 it's $2600 instead of $2300.

Bill
wsandman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:31 PM.