17-85mm or 18-55mm??

i am going to buy a 30D (first time dSLR buyer) and i want to know is the 17-85mm USM worth the $400 extra than the 18-55mm? i will mainly be using it for a news photography major at university next year. is the USM worth it? or will the 18-55 suffice?

consider the Sigma 17-70, optically better than the Canon 17-85 and cheaper too.

For the best overall setup, I'd just buy the body and get the Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di Lens, it can't be beat for the price. I ended up with the kit lens with my 30D anyways since I only got the combo body/kit for $1169.

I don't know why people are so down on the 17-85 IS; it's a great lens. Maybe not L quality, but...well... it's not supposed to be. It's the most versatile lens in my bag by far; 17-85 at more than acceptable sharpness on a x1.6 is a good range. Stop it down a bit (which you can, with impunity, thanks to the IS) and it'll sharpen up fine.

To answer your original question, though: yes, it's worth the extra money compared to the 18-55. And if you can get the 30D and the 17-85 as a discounted set (like I did), I would certainly recommend it. The 17-40L is certainly the better lens, but the 17-85 isn't even close to being the fuzzy dud that so many people make it out to be.

I too believe that the 17-85 IS is worth the $$$.
While the Tamron 28-75 is a great lens I found that it just wasn't wide enough on a 1.6 crop camera, same thing with the 24-70 L. I also found that the terrific IS on the 17-85 was more useful than the "see in the dark" f/2.8
Here are some examples.
https://photography-on-the.net …d.php?p=662318#​post662318
https://photography-on-the.net …d.php?p=745900#​post745900
https://photography-on-the.net …d.php?p=745869#​post745869
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=1209559&pos​tcount=712

If you're going to be doing news photography at 'a major university' get the L. Though chances are any major university newspaper will have its own gear. Heck, my tiny college's paper has its own (somewhat limited, but L nonetheless) gear. My friend at the UoMichigan tells me that they have a huge compliment of gear for their paper (not to mention intensive interview processes to get on staff).

Sigma has a 17-70 2.8-4.5. It's less expensive and a tad faster than the Canon. It has less reach and no IS though.

If you can try out some of the lens. Tamron also has a 17-50 2.8 lens which is a little more than the Sigma, but it gives you a constant 2.8 lens, which is nice.

One thing is, find out what type of equipment your school has. Idealy, if they have nikon, you should go nikon as you could take advantage of their gear(if they have a good setup), especially if you are dealing with the big 2.8 primes like 300mm, 400mm or even a good fast wide angle like a 17-35 2.8, 16-35 2.8. Of course that's another bone to throw into the equation, but its worth looking into.

17-85 without a doubt if you have the budget. IS is a bonus. Of course you can't expect L lens optics on a $500 lens with IS. I love mine.

My vote is for the EF-S 17-85 IS. I think you will be more pleased with it than the kit lens.

Have Fun,

skp the cheap kit lens...go for the IS

grego wrote in post #2100132
Sigma has a 17-70 2.8-4.5. It's less expensive and a tad faster than the Canon. It has less reach and no IS though.

If you can try out some of the lens. Tamron also has a 17-50 2.8 lens which is a little more than the Sigma, but it gives you a constant 2.8 lens, which is nice.

One thing is, find out what type of equipment your school has. Idealy, if they have nikon, you should go nikon as you could take advantage of their gear(if they have a good setup), especially if you are dealing with the big 2.8 primes like 300mm, 400mm or even a good fast wide angle like a 17-35 2.8, 16-35 2.8. Of course that's another bone to throw into the equation, but its worth looking into.

im still trying to decide between the sigma and the tamron myself

I had the 17-85IS and it was a very nice lens. However, I am not sure if it was really worth the money, especially if you plan on using it to take low light situations. It is a very nice lens, but alot of depends on what kind of conditions you will use it for. For an all in one type lens, I dont think there is anything that can match it.

tuan209 wrote in post #2107913
I had the 17-85IS and it was a very nice lens. However, I am not sure if it was really worth the money, especially if you plan on using it to take low light situations. It is a very nice lens, but alot of depends on what kind of conditions you will use it for. For an all in one type lens, I dont think there is anything that can match it.

At first i said i dont like it. It is my workhorse lens, but i wouldnt buy it again.
What you said is dead on though, it is a GREAT all around lens, If you use it inside, and have flash, it works good, but for me, i have advanced on in my photography, (i think) so i need something a little faster, and maybe more zoom. But to start out, or get a good lens with wide range, it is probably the best, considering that there is no other USM or IS that covers 17mm to 85mm in one.

For reporting, it is great, i got this and havent touched my kit lens. Kit lens is small, not enough reach, and that 1mm on the wide end really makes a difference, especially inside, even on a crop camera.

So i change my mind kadie by all means, get that over the kit lens, if money allows.

The 17-85mm is a great lens. The IS is great for low light situations. I used this lens at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum at Dulles and got great shots of the Enterprise Shuttle hand holding at 1/20 of a sec.

JBillings wrote in post #2108478
The 17-85mm is a great lens. The IS is great for low light situations. I used this lens at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum at Dulles and got great shots of the Enterprise Shuttle hand holding at 1/20 of a sec.

Im not bragging, but showing the capabilities of the lens, in an emergency, i have hand held at 1 second, not flash with IS on, and got a clear enough shot.
That was when i didnt even know about mirror lockup.

it is a great lens.
I started out on it, and would highly reccomend it for starting, or when you are in need of a good all around lens.

If you can afford it though, there are better options, but not everyone has that kind of money, unfortunately