20D: Lens question

[ayotnoms]

Is there any reason to have an 17-85mm lens and a 24-70mm ?

I'm confused when I see focal length numbers (24-70mm) that fall within the focal length bounds of the other lens (17-85mm).

Is it merely a matter of the lens quality, aperature, etc?

[cactusclay]

The 17-85 efs is a variable apature lens and has the image stableizer feature on it. The 24-70/2.8, if that's the one you are referring to is a constant 2.8 aparature, it is about 700.00$ more than the former and probably has better quality optics, but it doesn't go quite as wide or as long. I would think that it would be a waste to have both lenses, unless you just have lots of extra money laying around. Probably for a beginer the 17-85 would be a better choice, as the 24-70 is very heavy and expensive. Hope that helps.

[HJMinard]

Is there any reason to have an 17-85mm lens and a 24-70mm ?

No.

Is it merely a matter of the lens quality, aperature, etc

Yes.

There is no need for both - get the best you can afford in each focal length (or range of lengths in a zoom). You're going to have occasional overlap, but the two lenses mentioned are virtually the same range.

[gramps]

just my opinion but the 24 - 70 is a great chunk of glass. I use it as my "everyday carry lens". the weight isn't bad at all.

[cactusclay]

I miss the spell check

[ayotnoms]

Many thanks for the replies.

I'm still getting to know my 20D so I'll just have to make do with the 17-85 until such time that my sofa coughs up enough change to snag one those fancy L-series lens.

:-)

[mdr]

Why would you even consider getting or keeping the 17-85 when you have the 24-70 L? Bigger zoom range sounds wonderful, but in practise image quality is what counts.

[ScottE]

You are comparing lens quality vs cost and convenience.

Combine a 16-35/2.8 and a 24-70/2.8 and you will have almost the same focal length coverage as the 17-85.

If you need very sharp pictures, don't mind paying a lot more money, don't mind changing lenses more often and don't mind carrying quite a bit more weight, the 16-35 and 24-70 are for you.

If you can settle for good, but slightly less sharp pictures if you make big enlargements, the 17-85 is more convenient to use for an everyday walk around lens. Many people who hand hold most of their shots will actually get sharper photos with the 17-85 because the image stabilization will be of more assistance that the sharper glass.

[ayotnoms]

Ah, the ups and downs of DSLR ownership...
I bought my 20D on New Years Day. I bought a budget lens that was subsequently returned when, on the advice of the Canon rep at the SF Macworld conference, I bought the 17-85mm lens.

I'm not displeased with it. Given the amount of money I had budgeted for the camera, flash, and lens, a $$$ 24-70/2.8L wasn't in the picture, if you'll pardon the expression.

Pity that owning a nice camera gives one such a horrible case of lens-envy. 8-D