The age old question!

[sjsamuel]

Hello everyone this is my first post to this section. I have been browsing this forum for sometime now. I have always loved photography but now am trying to get a little more serious about it. My Sig has the equipment I now have had for about 4 months. As much as I love my new camera, I am itching for a new lens with better quality.
I do a lot of walk around type photography and would like an all around lens. The Kit 18-55 and my Tamron 28-200 is old just dosen't have the quality I would like. I have had my eye on the EF 17-85 F4 IS. What do you guys think about his lens. I have seen it used for as low as $400 and that is about how much I am willing to spend right now? I like it for the focal range and also the IS feature.
Any advice is appreciated.

[Heatseeker99]

How do you like the speed of your current lenses? Is the variable aperture working for you? Do you sometimes struggle with low shutter speeds? Are you satisfied using flash when the light is low?
The thing about those lenses are that they need to be stopped down to get good sharpness.
I have used the 17-85 4-5.6 on a friends camera and I actually think it was a good lens. But not much better than the 18-55 kit lens, however I didn't get time to use it extensively. I have read frequent disappointing reviews on it, though.

For a walk-around lens, I think the 17-85 IS (if you can deal w/ the aperture), Tamron 17-50 2.8, and Tamron 28-75 2.8 If you want to venture into the realm of ultra-wide angle, you can try the Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20. They are both have great image quality. They can be decent walk-around lens, too.
The Canon 17-55 2.8 IS is awesome too, but really pricey. If IS is what you want, maybe check that out.

[sjsamuel]

Well acutally I do like having the lower apature availability since I do find myself needing flash quite often and am reluctant to use it.
I guess from the options you listed the only thing I did not like was the lack of focal length range. Am I expecting too much in quality and flexebility or is there an option for me? :(

[unix04]

if you're looking for IQ, i dont think the 17~85 is that great a step up from the kit lens. it offers you a lot more convenience in the wider focal length and IS, but i dont think you'll see a dramatic increase in the quality of your images. i'd suggest the tammy 28~75 that heatseaker mentioned, unless you need the wide angle aspect. in that case, the 17~50. or maybe the sigma 24~70/2.8.

[PhotoJourno]

For serious photography, ask people to stop smiling before taking the shot (Self awarded the worst POTN joke of 2006). :(

I use the Sigma 24-70 2.8, it is a great lens, although many do not like its size, definitely larger than the 18-55, but the IQ is superior, as it is the wider aperture range.
I bought it used, and I do think it came down to a little over 400.

It all depends on what you want, and what you define as 'walkaround'. To share my own perspective, walking around to me means the lens attached to the camera I carry with me to the store, to work, etc. That is a Canon with a 50mm 1.8. What I am going after is press type of photos, say there is a fire or a collission, I jump out and take decent photos.

And now, I am actually thinking of taking out and walking the 10-20mm around, since it provides great wide angle pics, and it is a focal area I have never experienced before. Sure, in case of a fire it may not capture the sweat inside a fireman's mask, but it might just show the mess of hoses, lights, smoke and yellow suits.

In conclusion, anywhere from 15 to 80 mm is a good range for most kinds of photos. If you are after that, consider the Sigma. Otherwise Canon has great stuff for a higher price (go to the L stuff), or stick with the 18-55mm and keep on saving.

Hope this helps.

Regs,

[Heatseeker99]

Well acutally I do like having the lower apature availability since I do find myself needing flash quite often and am reluctant to use it.
I guess from the options you listed the only thing I did not like was the lack of focal length range. Am I expecting too much in quality and flexebility or is there an option for me? :(
Yeah, you will notice that the higher quality lenses don't have too large of range (around 3x-4x).
It has been said, and I'll say it again. Photography is all about compromises, and lenses are at the forefront of that statement. You already have Tamron 28-200 and Canon 100 2.8 when you need telephoto so don't put a wide zoom range as a high priority. You want IQ, IQ, IQ. So go with one of the aforementioned lenses.

[Moppie]

It all comes down to how much you want to spend, and how much of a quality improvment you want?
Also remember ease of use etc all have to factor into it.

Iv used the Canon 17-85 IS and consider it a very good lens, a little over priced though.
I bought a Sigma 17-70 which seems to offer similar optical quality, but is cheaper, and a lot lighter making it a nice walk around lens for me.
The other suggested lenses all seem to have very good reviews, and similar qualities.

The next stop up is to go for the more proffesional series lenses, Sigmas EX line, and of course Canons L series.
But, they are a lot more expensive and a lot bigger and heavier to carry around.
You have to deciede if the increase in IQ is worth the increase in $$ and kg's.

[ed rader]

Well acutally I do like having the lower apature availability since I do find myself needing flash quite often and am reluctant to use it.
I guess from the options you listed the only thing I did not like was the lack of focal length range. Am I expecting too much in quality and flexebility or is there an option for me? :(


the best zooms are 3x so if you really want quality you'll have shorter range. for the money you want to spend i'd be looking at the tamron 28-75. for a bit more the tamron 17-50.

good copies of both have excellent IQ and constant f2.8 aperatures.

the tamron 28-75 is perhaps the best deal on the market for a third party lens. this is the lens that ruined me for consumer IQ :D .

plus you'll still have you other lenses which you will learn to hate and therefore will want to upgrade ASAP :D .

it's better to get one super lens in a critical range (walkaround) and upgrade your other lenses later, imo.

ed rader

[Saralonde]

SInce your price range is around $400 and you like the lower aperture, the Tamron 28-75 2.8 may be a good choice. A lot of people have this lens (me too!) and love it. I bought mine for $349 at buydig.com and Tamron has a $30 rebate going on right now. I got my rebate check 3 weeks after I sent in the info. With the money you save, you can get the 50 1.8 too.;)

[sjsamuel]

Hey everyone thanks for the suggestions. I really appreciate it. One lens mentioned earlier was quite appealing the Sigma 17-70 2.8. I like the range and the low F. Can anyone with this lens comment on the IQ.
Also the last post of the tamaron 28-75 sounds good especially the price but...I really think I want to have the wide angle option.
Also if I picked up one of these would it be crazy to sell my kit lens?

[Skrim17]

I have the Tamron and find myself wanting on the wider end tho IQ is outstanding. I have had personal issues with Sigma lens' so stay away on principal. I gave my kit lens away after getting my tammy and 50

[Moppie]

Hey everyone thanks for the suggestions. I really appreciate it. One lens mentioned earlier was quite appealing the Sigma 17-70 2.8. I like the range and the low F. Can anyone with this lens comment on the IQ.



I love mine, I purchased it instead of the kit lens, which Iv borrowed copies of in the past.
Its deffinitly a better lens, sharper, faster, better colours etc.
But its still a consumer level lens, and has its limitations, which Im still discovering.

There are whole threads dedicated to its praise though, just pop 17-70 into the search and it should find them all :)

[Heatseeker99]

Hey everyone thanks for the suggestions. I really appreciate it. One lens mentioned earlier was quite appealing the Sigma 17-70 2.8. I like the range and the low F. Can anyone with this lens comment on the IQ.
Also the last post of the tamaron 28-75 sounds good especially the price but...I really think I want to have the wide angle option.
Also if I picked up one of these would it be crazy to sell my kit lens?

I think it may be a good option for you too. Just be aware that it is not a constant f/2.8. I believe it is f/2.8 up to 20mm only and it is f/4.5 at 70mm.

[Moppie]

I think it may be a good option for you too. Just be aware that it is not a constant f/2.8. I believe it is f/2.8 up to 20mm only and it is f/4.5 at 70mm.


Its staged, starts at 2.8, then 3.5 then 4.0 then 4.5 (if I remember correctly).
Iv yet to find much of a use for 2.8 at the 17mm end, but it does mean you can shoot at a constant 4.5 or 5.1 and get really sharp photos at the wider end.

[davidfig]

Go here and select the manufacture of the lens you are interested in. Then view away.
http://www.pbase.com/cameras

[sjsamuel]

Is the Tamaron 17-50 f2.8 constant 2.8. I didn't realize that a zoom lens could have a constant fstop

[Moppie]

Is the Tamaron 17-50 f2.8 constant 2.8. I didn't realize that a zoom lens could have a constant fstop

It is, and having used constant apature primes before I was very tempted to have a close look at it instead of the 17-70. In the end however I liked the idea of the extra 20mm on the end, and so far have made very good use of it.

The advantages of constant apature were for me only going to be apparent in low light shooting, for which I have a 550ex, and for portraits, for which I plan on getting a nifty fifty.
Having a constant apature through out the zoom is of course fantastic for DOF control when zooming and exposure control when shooting in manaul, but I simply couldn't justify it over getting the extra 20mm, as Im already used to shooting with a variable apature zoom, and adjust accordingly.

How useful it will be for you depends on what sort of shooting you do, and what need you can see in it for yourself.

[sjsamuel]

well just to update you all....after hours of breaking my head I finally broke down and ordered the Sigma 17-70. I read a lot of reviews and looked at a lot of examples and finally did the deed.
Thanks everyone for the advice I will post some pics after I get the lens.
By the way its seems like you take a chance with this lens as some people get bad copies. Can someone tell me what would be a good way to test the lens when I get it?

[Moppie]

Congrats! Its a really wonderful lens, and being a Sigma it comes with a hood too :)

[I Simonius]

Hello everyone this is my first post to this section. I have been browsing this forum for sometime now. I have always loved photography but now am trying to get a little more serious about it. My Sig has the equipment I now have had for about 4 months. As much as I love my new camera, I am itching for a new lens with better quality.
I do a lot of walk around type photography and would like an all around lens. The Kit 18-55 and my Tamron 28-200 is old just dosen't have the quality I would like. I have had my eye on the EF 17-85 F4 IS. What do you guys think about his lens. I have seen it used for as low as $400 and that is about how much I am willing to spend right now? I like it for the focal range and also the IS feature.
Any advice is appreciated.

if it is QUALITY that you're loking for and bearing in mind that one day you will probably want to upgrade your camera I would lok at the 'L' range of lenses e.g. the 24-105 L

[Just Be]

I like my Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5.
Check the test results and see for yourself.

[BIGTUFFGUY]

i have the 17-85 IS and i find its a nice step up from the kit lens.
the IS works great.

just know its limitations and work within them.
stopped down i find its quite sharp.

nothing like the Ls i've seen but for the price its nice.