Lens upgrade, what do you guys think?

[avsfan]

I have the 300D Rebel and have been using the kit lens (18-55) until I could get something better. Now is that time.

I am thinking the EF-S 17-85 IS for my "walking-around" lens. It should cover me in most cases. It should be wide angle enough at 17 for most of what I do, and it would be a significant upgrade over the kit lens going from 55 to 85. Plus it has IS, and I believe quality-wise a much better lens than what I currently have.

In addition, I am looking for a longer range zoom lens. I am leaning towards the EF 70-200 4L. What I can't decide is whether to go with the 70-200 2.8L, or even go for the 70-200 2.8L IS. I just can't decide if the extra $$ would be worth it for me for what I shoot?

As for what I shoot. I will use it for most of the standard stuff, vacation pics, people, some scenery shots, family stuff, some portraits, etc.

Let me know what you guys think of the 17-85 IS?
Let me know your thoughts on the 70-200 4L? Or the other two 70-200's?

thanks, Steve

[Citizensmith]

The 17-85 is a very nice lens but its still just a consumer lens. It's benefits as a decent walk around are countered by some optical trade offs (distortion and CA).

I went for the 17-40 and 85 1.8 as my walk around kit. Both wonderful lenses.

As for the 70-200s, optically there is nothing between them, and if anything the f/4 has a tiny edge over the others. What you are paying for is an extra stop of light, and IS. Both can offer a significant advantage over a straight f/4.

[avsfan]

One other question. Can I use the 70-200 without a tripod?

[RJSorensen]

I think the world of my EFS 17-85 . . . in fact I can not say enough good about it. One lens that works wonders in tight places to reaching up and filling the frame with that which you choose. When I go street shooting it is me one lens and the camera. Not a pack not a bunch of gear, just a spare CF card and a battery in my pocket. Get a hood for it and you will love it. I think the real world distractions of this lens are overrated . . .

For a 'general' use and or walk around lens it can not be beat in a single package.

[tim]

I aim to buy lenses F2.8 or faster personally, so it wouldn't suit me. I returned an F4 - F5.6 lens because it was just too slow.

The 70-200 F2.8 IS is too heavy to use for long without a tripod. I used one for 10 minutes once and I had really sore arms afterwards.

[JusSmith]

For me, I've just ordered the 70-200 f/4L. I spent a while pondering over the f/2.8L (I ruled out the IS, can't see that I would ever need it), but the extra weight and cost couldn't justify the few times when I would need something faster.


I've read that L lenses hold their price keenly, so you could always Ebay the f/4L and upgrade to the f/2.8L later.