Replacing my Canon 17-85... taking a poll

[acorean]

I recently entered the dslr world and have had somewhat of a rocky beginning. I first purchased the XTi w/ kit lens, took a trip to Vegas, shot everything in sight, got home and was a little disappointed with overall quality, returned the kit, and picked up an EF-S 17-85

I haven't had time to put the 17-85through the ringer but I'm taking a once in a life time trip to Europe this summer and need a lens I can depend on for quality shots.

A friend turned me on to the forum and I've been doing LOTS of reading. I have to say that I'm disappointed by all the reviews. I've decided to dump the 17-85 and pick up one of the following (since I don't want to spend L money)

Option 1: Sigma 17-70 (leaning towards this one based on forum reviews and range)
Option 2: Sigma 18-50 f/2.8
Option 3: Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

Let the voting begin!!!!

(Thank you all in advance for your help.)

[LightRules]

None of the above. Keep the 1785 until the new Tokina 1650 f2.8 is released.

[JeffreyVB]

Canon 24-105 f4L

[LightRules]

Originally Posted by JeffreyVB

Canon 24-105 f4L

Not wide enough and too slow.

[Dah-Dee]

Originally Posted by acorean

I don't want to spend L money

Originally Posted by JeffreyVB

Canon 24-105 f4L

Um.....

[hdco1209]

you gotta do what you gotta do but that 17-85 is the right lens.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...light=vacation

[liza]

The Tamron 17-50 gets my vote.

[DerekI]

hi , you gonna regret if you replace it with something else like listed above, it 's got something all others never have ; USM with FTM and dead accurate super fast focus.
Plus, this lens has better color tone and contrast than all Sigmas ,I am not very sure about the Tamron but you are going to lose alot more than you are going to gain if you trade it for others mentioned here.

Probably most importantly , all others have no IS , and the Sigma 17-70 is even not much faster than the Canon , so with IS , the Canon is much better peformer than the Sigma in low light .

Although at the 17mm wide end , the sigma performs a bit better , at the 85 and 70 mm tele end respectively for each, actually the Canon is much sharper.

Also all the problems of the Canon lens; CA and distortion at 17-24mm are digitally correctable while the sigma problems(flare, vignetting and color tone or contrast) are more difficult to correct on PhotoShop.

If you relalyneed to replace it and wont miss the range of it with IS, then you should try the EF17-40L or 17-55IS. But the17-55IS is much more expensive and less useful at least I think so 55 is so short.

[DerekI]

Originally Posted by acorean

I recently entered the dslr world and have had somewhat of a rocky beginning. I first purchased the XTi w/ kit lens, took a trip to Vegas, shot everything in sight, got home and was a little disappointed with overall quality, returned the kit, and picked up an EF-S 17-85

I haven't had time to put the 17-85through the ringer but I'm taking a once in a life time trip to Europe this summer and need a lens I can depend on for quality shots.

A friend turned me on to the forum and I've been doing LOTS of reading. I have to say that I'm disappointed by all the reviews. I've decided to dump the 17-85 and pick up one of the following (since I don't want to spend L money)

Option 1: Sigma 17-70 (leaning towards this one based on forum reviews and range)
Option 2: Sigma 18-50 f/2.8
Option 3: Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

Let the voting begin!!!!

(Thank you all in advance for your help.)

Hey , I thing forgot to tell you those bashing or trashing the 17-85IS never used it or do not know what they are talking about , they never shoot in low light or do not know how to use PS to correct the barrel distortion , it is very easy to fix in a munite.

[h0rde]

Keep the 17-85 IS until you can afford the 17-55 2.8 IS. Next question?

[Tee Why]

Don't take this the wrong way. I went to Vegas with a kit lens and got some pretty nice shots. Instead of automatically blaming the lens, which I think is mediocre at best, make sure it's not your technique. You can look at my old gallery when I was a newbie and see for yourself. While not masterpieces, I think they are ok.

http://tomyi.smugmug.com/gallery/574812#24026308

Now, if you just got the 17-85 and haven't even used it and want to return it, it sounds more like a case of Gear Acquisition Syndrome, AKA Gas attack. I'd recommend testing out the lens first and see how it performs. If you like it as it offers a great range and IS, save yourself the hassle and keep it. If you don't like the optics, then any one of the three lenses you got will work well. I'd go for the range and speed you want rather than just sharpness, as those lenses will outperform most shooters.

Good luck.

[dicky109]

For all the reasons listed, I'd suggest you keep the 17-85. Additionally, while I've seen glowing reviews of the Sigma 17-70, I've also read raving reviews of Sigma's QC and folks returning several versions until they received one which performed properly.

If you're worried about image quality, while not in the "L" caliber, it does a decent job and focuses easily. I visited Hamburg, Germany 2 weeks ago and shot the following with my XT and 17-85 from a moving car on a highway, on AF. I'd stupidly forgotten to change the aperature back from my previous shot, so this only shot at 1/160 second. Before downsizing for the web, the original is even a lot sharper. Not too shabby I think, for a "cr*p" lens!

Good luck,

[dicktay]

Used one for everthing except wildlife in Coloado & Wyoming last year on vacation to the USA., UK & Europe. Took over 5000 photographs with it (Canon 350D (Rebel XT)), including the hand held night scenes in London & Gosalr (Germany). It is my travel lens of choice although sometimes in churces and cities i wished for something wider.. I now have a Tokina 12-24 and that will travel with me also next time we go.
Pics can be seen here.
http://www.poseruniverse.net/Holiday2006/Top2006.htm

Also do not underestimate IS.
Here are some test shots when i first got it. Original full size jpgs are on the site.
http://www.poseruniverse.net/Photogr...n_1600_IS.html

[vjack]

IS will be far more helpful than an f/2.8 lens when shooting still scenes in low light. I think I'd stick with the 17-85.

[danster]

I've recently sold my 17-85mm as I found it a little slow in low light. Yes the IS comes in handy but sometimes its not enough. I guess you need to decide if you're going to use this mostly in the day or evening as my 17-85 paired up with a polariser was really good in bright daytime conditions.
I guess you need to weigh up the options of capturing your memories of this once in a lifetime trip. I've just bought a new lens in preparation for my trip to Tasmania and memories are priceless, IMHO.