Looking for a replacement for my 17-85

I'm seriously considering selling my 17-85 IS and I'm looking for another walk-around lens. I'm partial to Canon but may be convinced otherwise. Budget is somewhat wide, up to $1000.00 or so considering I'll get $400.00 or so for the 17-85.

I've considered the 17-40 because of what I've heard about it on this site. I'll retain the 17 mm for wide angle and there is the perceived quality of an "L"!

Please give me comments/suggestions of the 17-40 or any other suggested lens for walk-around.

Thanks,

Come up with another 200 bucks and the 2.8 16-35 or 24-70 will be yours.

The 17-40 is a great lens, most people love it. But it will leave you a gap between 50-70mm - does that matter? I have 17-40, 50, 70-200 and of course the kit lens should I need it ( it does happen, sometimes) and i don't really miss the 50-70 range.

The 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM. On a crop body, there's nothing that can match it.

I am hooked on the 24-70. May be a bit more, but well worth it. And I am a prime addict.

the 17-40 is a great lens. but not sure if its the best for your situation. I too would suggest you save up a little bit more and look at the 17-55 2.8 IS, 24-70 2.8L, 24-105 F4L, and 16-13 2.8L.

Hmm, the perfect walkaround, why would you throw it out?

I have a 17-40 but that lens fills a different role and leads a different life..

17-40: You will definitely lose IS and the longer end. I dunno, I like a bit more telephoto on my walkaround zoom, but if you can live with the focal length, the quality is definitely there. The 17-40 on APS-C has definitely got better image quality wide open than the 17-85, especially wide open at 17-24mm.

17-55 f/2.8: awesome lens with awesome specs. Color, contrast, performance all L grade. I am a little put off by the dust problem though.

16-35 f/2.8: L and everything. Even shorter focal length but I have seen wedding professionals use this on a 20D well before the 17-55 f/2.8 came out. I suppose they have their reasons..

24-105/24-70 L zooms: Awesome image quality, awesome performance, everything you want from an L. *NOWHERE* near wide enough on APS-C at least for me. Crop factor turns 'em into 40mm zooms at their widest end. Nope, doesn't work for me. 24-105 lives on 5D.

For me I can't do walk around w/o the 10-22. It's light enough to carry along and gives you that extra wide view. I usually pair it with the 17-85, although if that suddenly disappeared or became unusable, I would find the mullah and spring for the 24-105. That would be a killer combo, imho.

Having had a 17-85, I think it is an ideal walkabout lens. You may find the 17-40 a bit short on focal length as I did. The 24-105 is probably a better replacement, but not so good for landscapes. I am looking for another lens to replace the lost reach of my 17-85!

If I had my digital camera time over (again buying a 1.6 crop), I would buy a 24-70 first, then a 10-22, then a 100-400.

I wish I had this forum, and knew what I do now, before buying 500 L lenses that I did not need.

The other end of the spectrum would be buying something (cos it's cheap) that doesn't do what you want, and you end up paying again to replace it.

I agree whole heartedly, F/2.8 and IS are hard to beat together.

If you are looking for a Canon walking around lens for a cropped sensor, I'd also say the 17-55IS. It's fast and has a good range along with a IS. For me, that's too much money and went with the Tamron 17-50 and am very satisfied. Excellent optics and a great price.

I'm in the same situation. I am just not thrilled with the quality of my pictures from the 17-85mm IS USM. I read lots of reviews and decided to replace it with the Tamron 28-75 mm (~$380). It's almost exactly the same size and weight as the 17-85 Canon lens, but I'm finding the quality much better. The optics are supposed to be close to L quality. Granted, the build is not L quality (but it's not bad - just a grade below the Canon 17-85mm). Also, it doesn't come with IS. I have to say, though, that I'm getting more in focus shots, and the bokeh is nice. It's F2.8 thoughout the zoom range. The IS on the Canon 17-85 can give you more in focus pictures with less light than you normally would get with that lens without it; but it can't give you the nice backround blur that a 2.8 lens can. The Canon 24-70 L lens is also supposed to be a nice lens. It's heavier and longer than the Tamron, but that might be the one I upgrade to later on. For now, I'm thinking that I'll be sticking with the Tamron.

I have also been wondering about.

If you are going to be sticking with the 20D then the 17-55 f/2.8 IS may be a thought (Dust allowing). BUT if you are going to upgrade in the future to a 5D or 1D MKII then you will not be able to use the EF-s lenses.

17mm on a 20D is like 27MM due to the 1.6 crop
17mm on a 1D MKII N is 22mm due to the 1.3 crop
17mm on a 5D is 17mm due to no crop

So whats my point. If you intend changing then I would suggest the 24-70 f/2.8

Even if you do not intend to upgrade the 24-70 is a great lens. I wonder if you would miss IS?? You could then cover the wider end with a 10-22 but this would only be useable with the 20D as its an EF-s lens

If you sticking with the 20D you may find the going to 28mm as your widest point may be just to much ie bigger gap

I suspect you would get more useful advice if you explained what it is about the 17-85 that leads you to consider replacing it. If your complaints are with image quality, that may lead in a different direction than if your complaints are with speed.