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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 27, 2006, 11:20 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 166
Default

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

Share your thoughts
driliagor is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 27, 2006, 2:13 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

It's fairly straight forward for shooters of the smaller sensored bodies- if you need a general purpose lens to shoot mainly stopped down, don't want to pay a ton of money but want decent quality, buy the 17-85 with image stabilization.

If you need a fast lens for low light to shoot at faster shutter speeds, want to separate the subject from the background in portraits and don't mind the higher weight or cost, the 17-55/2.8 is for you.

If you need weather-sealing get the 17-40L.

If you're cheap, go buy a Sigma or some other third party lens. There no excuse to not buy any brand lens other than Canon in this range. They now give everyone a complete choice of almost every type "normal" zoom andCanon'slensesare leaps and bounds above them all in terms of focus speed and overall compatibility with any possible future bodies. Third party lenses in many cases are cheaper....in many cases you do in the end get what you pay for.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28, 2006, 3:11 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
TheGhost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 103
Default

I've used the kit lens for about a year and I really couldn't stand that focal range. I can't really see this lens used for weddings, unless the photographer wants to stand right up there with the bride and groom. So close that he would probably have his shadow casted in the image. For that price tag too, I'd rather put in a couple more dollars and go with the 24-105mm, which at least could capture up-close and personal shots, although arguably the 70-200 is more suited for such things (cheaper too if you go with the F/4 option). Secondly, while the quality is good, the EF 50 is superior (at same focal length) and at 1/10th the cost. I really don't understand where Canon justifies the extremely expensive price tag on this lens. F/2.8 is nice, but for more than a thousand? If it were me, I'd sell the lens at roughly the same price as the 17-85. It would attract a lot more consumers.
TheGhost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2006, 4:38 AM   #4
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Quote:
I really don't understand where Canon justifies the extremely expensive price tag on this lens. F/2.8 is nice, but for more than a thousand? If it were me, I'd sell the lens at roughly the same price as the 17-85. It would attract a lot more consumers.
Selling a lens at below cost price certainly would increase sales, unfortunately selling lots of something that you make a loss on isn't very good business practice.

The Canon is the best lens in its class, but the price premium at the margins is high, this is true of just about all engineered products, not just lenses.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2006, 12:33 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 229
Default

Good thoughts all.* Cost is still an issue to many of us and unless you have lot's of money and or intend to make money with your equipment there is no reason not to consider 3rd party lenses.* Tamron and Sigma make some excellent lenses in these focal lengths.* Just bought the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 and I am quite pleased with it.* Most of my shots are indoor* shots without flash and the Tamron fits the bill at a very reasonable price. Even has a pleasant bokeh.* Not great but fairly nice.* Shot 50mm* F3.5 ISO 400
Attached Images
 
Ctrack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2006, 6:37 AM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

My 2 cents:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_28/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

-> The 17-55 is slighly sharper @ the center, but if you are using this lens for landscape and what a WA is for, the Tamron's 17-50 is sharper at the borders (and extreme borders) - Interestingly the L lens here actually scores dead last at the peripherals because of their full-frame design (so I don't know how this'll fare on a 5D)

-> The Canon is better at controlling CA, but then the Tamron vignette less

In a perfect world you'll want everything (@ zero cost) - but this is not: compromise... compromise... :lol: :-) :G
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2006, 4:22 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

I would've gotten the 17-55 if it was out earlier, but instead I got the 17-85 for the greater focal range (which I find very useful for general purpose outdoor or indoor with a flash).

In fact, I'm still thinking about purchasing this lens - but it won't be a replacement of the 17-85. I'm fine with the small focal range indoors and f/2.8 will be very useful for get togethers. Sure, it's not a lens for everyone (just like any other lens out there), but it is for me!

When I look at third party varients, the most disappointing factor is the build quality - And yes, I find it so disappointing that I'd rather save up a lot more for the canon version (Am I the only one that feels that way? :roll. The only third party lenses that I like (in terms of build quality) are the Sigma EX lines (WITH HSM) and the tokina professional lines (although the focusing isn't silent, I find it a lot more tolerable than other non-USMs).
BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2006, 12:36 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 229
Default

Build quality.* I have recently puchased a Tamron and a Sigma and the build quality is quite good.* However, if the Tokina 16-50 was available I would have purchased it in a heartbeat.**Canon does build some nice lenses that are usually superior to others (IMHO) but those are mainly in the L series.* Over the years I have learned to give the other makers a chance.* If the lens is priced right and it fits a need I don't hesitate to try it or to add it to my collection.
Ctrack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2006, 1:57 AM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9
Default

My first lense (after the 18-55 kit) was the 17-85. This was my walk around lens. I got some good pictures, some sharp pictures, but the lens is inconsistent. I recently got the 17-55, and now the 17-85 is benched. There is a major difference in IQ and consistency. I have the 70-300 IS, so I guess now I'll let my legs fill in the focal range gap. I can never go back to the 17-85.
Sawyer Duvall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2006, 5:48 AM   #10
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Sawyer Duvall

You have mentioned before that you found the 17-85 "inconsistent".

I'm extremely curious as to what you could possibly mean. I presume you only had one copy and found that single lens to be inconsistent.

May be one for the X-files.
peripatetic 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 1:50 AM.