Alternative for Canon 17-85 IS

[sam bailey]

I am considering the Canon 17-85 IS. I would like to have a little more telephoto for a single carry around lens. Any recommendations? I have other lenses for dedicated use when critical pictures are required. It is nice to just carry one camera and lens on most occasions for activities. Thanks

[gjl711]

Is the low end or high end more important? The 26-105 or the 28-135 makes quite a good walkaround but you loose a lot on the wide end. Also, the 135 is spotty with many reporting softness. I am lucky I guess in that I love my 28-135 and it performs great. The 24-70L is a great lens but doesn’t get you past the 85 the 17-85 has but kills on IQ. Also I have heard good things about the 24-105L but have never had a chance to play with it.

[Wilt]

Pick up a Tokima or Sigron 18-200! I have a Tagma 28-200 for my Olympus film outfit (now somewhat dormant) and would leave all the primes (except for one WA and a very fast normal) when playing tourist!

[evandavies]

If you really want something to cover the widest possible range in one package then the Tamron 18-250 is probably your best bet. Obviously don't expect sharp images and at 250mm its f/6.3 :confused:

Bob Atkins did find some good things to say about it. Mainly it wasn't as bad as he expected it would be.

[boink]

replace the 17-85?

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 (insert big glittery heart here) :lol:

[gasrocks]

Replace the 17-85? I'll vote for Tamron 17-50 or (way more $) efs 17-55 IS. More telephoto? 70-200.

[Moppie]

replace the 17-85?

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 (insert big glittery heart here) :lol:


Yip, I also happen to think the Sigma is a much better peice of glass.
Don't quite know if its big glittery heart material though :p


If you want longer in the same price range also consider the sigma 18-200.
Iv never used one, but did spend a day shooting with someone who had one, and seemed to enjoy useing it. He had access to some more serious glass, but liked the range of the 18-200 for a walk around lens.

[Wilt]

Hey folks, the OP says he wants "a little more telephoto". Some of the lenses suggested might be faster or sharper, but they fail to meet the OP's objective!

[Moppie]

Hey folks, the OP says he wants "a little more telephoto". Some of the lenses suggested might be faster or sharper, but they fail to meet the OP's objective!


Iv seen 2 recomendations for the 18-200, does that not count?

I believe sam bailey is asking for something with a little more on the long end than the kit lens, and is considering the 17-85 as an alternative.

Of course being that this is in the lens forum maybe we should all just be suggesting he get a combination of L primes to fill his needs ;)

[sam bailey]

Thanks guys. I will look into the Sigma 18-200 for starters.

[Steve1096]

I have the Sigma 18-200 and am pretty happy with it for an all around walk about tourist type lens. It covers the focal lengths needed with out having to swap lenses.

I wanted a longer range and got the canon 70-300 is and I love it. I believe it takes nicer pictures than the Sigma. So I thought I would partner it up with a shorter and hopefully better lens for a two lens solution. I bought the canon 17-85 is.

At first, I felt the 17-85 was better than the sigma 18-200, but after some time and more shots, I am starting to think that it is only slightly better in terms of the quality of pictures. The 17-85 helps get some lower light shots in focus better however, but for outdoor shooting, not much of a difference. I do think I get a higher percentage of keepers with the 17-85 though.

Right now, I am debating about selling the 17-85 is and getting either the Sigma 17-70, the Tamron 17-50 2.8, or the Canon 17-55 2.8 to partner with the canon 70-300 is. Seems most people are very fond of the Sigma 17-70 and the Tamron 17-50 and even more so the Canon 17-55. However, $350 vs. $450 vs. $950....are big differences in price ;)

Most people say the Sigma 18-200 is junk. However, I and a friend of mine both have this lens, and think it is very good. Of course neither of us have the funds to purchase the much more expensive glass to directly compare it too, but for a one lens walk-around, it does a very good job.

[dicktay]

I have both the Canon 17-85 IS and the Tamron 18-200.
If I have to really travel really light and want the extra focal length I will carry the Tamron. Doesn't feel as good as the Canon or focus as fast or is as good in low light.

All the pictures here (day 2) are taken with the Tamron 18-200:
http://www.poseruniverse.net/Travel/Kosciuszko/Day2/KNP2_Top_L.htm

Day 1 is with a Tokina 12-24.
Hope this helps.
Richard