Once I'm going 17mm.....

Hi all, I would very much appreciate your thoughts and comments on the following lenses I am considering, I know I want the 17 part, so the question is:

EF 17-40 f/4L
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS
EF-S 17-85 IS
or sigma
17-70 f/2.8-4.5 DC

I already have the 28-105 which with 1.6 crop on my rebel XT is more like 45-165. I know budget is a common issue but I am not aware of the specific prices of these lenses. Likely I will pick the perfect balance between price and quality. Thanks a lot.

Well, in order of price from cheapest to most expensive:

Sigma 17-70
17-85IS
17-40
17-55 IS

There's a big difference in price, range, speed, build, features, etc. It depends on your shooting needs, what you're looking for, and how much you want to spend. If money is no object the 17-55 IS is a no brainer, optically the 17-85 is the "worst" of the bunch, 17-70 is a great value, and the 17-40 is built like a tank and delivers great IQ every time. Need more info to recommend one to you. Also, as a compromise to the 17-55 IS or 17-40 look at the tamron 17-50 F/2.8

AMG wrote in post #3086911
Hi all, I would very much appreciate your thoughts and comments on the following lenses I am considering, I know I want the 17 part, so the question is:

EF 17-40 f/4L
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS
EF-S 17-85 IS
or sigma
17-70 f/2.8-4.5 DC

I already have the 28-105 which with 1.6 crop on my rebel XT is more like 45-165. I know budget is a common issue but I am not aware of the specific prices of these lenses. Likely I will pick the perfect balance between price and quality. Thanks a lot.

17-40 is a very limited range on a 1.6 crop. I would rule out the L. The Sigma 17-70's optics are far better than the 17-85, for about $100 less. The Canon 17-55 is optically equal to the 17-70, but has less range. However, it is constant f/2.8 aperture and has IS. It is more than twice as much as the Sigma, somewhere between 900-1000 dollars. Tamron also makes a spectacular 17-50mm f/2.8 for not much more than the Sig 17-70.

Save your money and buy the 17-55IS. It's below a grand, and the image quality is out of this world. If you simply cannot wait, the Tamron 17-50 would be a viable option.

Dorman wrote in post #3086938
Also, as a compromise to the 17-55 IS or 17-40 look at the tamron 17-50 F/2.8

For what my opinion of what you "need" is worth: I second the comment above - the Tamron 17-50 deserves a look before you pull the trigger. Good luck!

Canon 17 - 55 f/2.8 IS without a doubt.

I'll agree with the tammy, or the 17-55IS if you want to spend more money for the IS. The 17-85 isn't worth the money, and the constant f/2.8 will be more useful than the extra 20mm of the sigma. A fantastic combo is the tamron 17-50 and 85/1.8.

I also agree with the Tammy. Sold my 17-40L for it and never looked back.

If you want 17mm and, don't really care about the other focal legnths, and want to keep costs down, try to find a Tokina 17mm f/3.5. Perhaps KEH or eBay.

Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS USM = Cream of the Crop. It's in a class by itself because of its ring USM/FTM and IS. It also has the most accurate AF of them all.

350D_Noob wrote in post #3087073
Canon 17 - 55 f/2.8 IS without a doubt.

DITTO.

24-70L err I mean the efs version the 17-55 IS (almost L).

Once you go 17, are you going to wish you went 10?

Pete-eos wrote in post #3088540
Once you go 17, are you going to wish you went 10?

This is a good question. I was in a similar position but was coverd down to 24mm rather than your 28. My answer was the Tokina 12-24 leaving me no gap and no overlap. You would have a gap from 24 to 28mm and I am not sure how serious a fault that would be. Certainly it would be better than a 10-20 or 10-22 unless the 10mm were the driving factor. There is no doubt that the many posts above promoting the 17-55 IS are correct if money is no object but I decided the extra range in the wide and the considerable price difference made more difference to my type of shooting than the f/2.8. Your way of shooting may differ.

timbop wrote in post #3087453
I'll agree with the tammy, or the 17-55IS if you want to spend more money for the IS. The 17-85 isn't worth the money, and the constant f/2.8 will be more useful than the extra 20mm of the sigma. A fantastic combo is the tamron 17-50 and 85/1.8.

Before trashing the 17-85Is , have you ever used it or just your opinion is based on a web site review like photozone ?


Why is it not worth the money?

I love it with knowing all its problems and that are all easily corrected in
PP.

Remember it is digital age not old 35mm film era , so the distortion is not a problem .

I am curious why so many people rave for more useless lens like 17-55IS(more vignetting , more prone to flare and less reproduction rate ) , which is not worth the money IMHO , but many without knowing the lens hate the 17-85IS .......

Seem like people are hugely biased and the Tmaron is a good lens but force me to change the lens more often, and not focuses as fast as the 17-85IS.

The 17-85Is is a jack of all trade maybe though does all acceptably well esp in digital era.

Please do not brainwash others to beleive this lens is a trashy lens or over priced .......... I understand you hate it but others can have their own eyes to judge it themselves.

Finally a lens should not be judged purely based on its optics.

Mechanics , optics, ergonomics ,convenience all are important.

I think every body should beleive his or her own eyes rather than listening to others or reading worthless lens review of photozone.de and biased camera review of dp review ..............every body has different experience and different shooting style , after all.