Canon Lens advice ......?

PCPhil

PCPhil

Messages
736
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
Have a 550D
At present have the 'Nifty 50' and EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

Most of my favoutite shots are outside landscapes. Looking to save my pennies for one really nice lens that will stay on my camera most of the time.
Seems to boiling down to either;

EF 17-40mm F4 L Lens[/B]: 'L' class, looks gorgeous, can follow me if I ever upgrade to full frame but no IS (is this an issue?),
or
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM[/B]: Fast, gets great reviews, has IS, but can not take to a full frame and the most expensive,
or
EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM[/B]: Not as fast as above but also gets great reviews.

Any advice from people
 
If you think you will upgrade to FF in the future, the logical choice is the 17-40. A great lens for your type of photography.

Ian
 
You may wish to have a look at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. It doesn't have HSM, IS and can't go FF, but it is very sharp and pretty damn cheap for what you get (you can pick it up for about £300). There is a vibration reduction version, but it isn't liked as much.
 
If it's between those, I'd say the 17-55 every time, they hold their value well, so if you move to full frame you'll be able to sell on for a relatively small loss.

If everything you do involves lots of light, or a tripod, and you want that extra reach, then I've heard a lot of good things about the 15-85 regarding optical quality, the only complaints are usually down to the speed.

The 17-40 is great if you're looking for a full-frame ultra-wide lens, but on a crop it's expensive, slow, and has a small focal range.

I don't rate IS very highly on these kind of focal lengths personally, but different people feel differently about it. Turn it off on your current lens and see if you notice the difference :)

Chris

Edit: I'd say go for the 17-55 IS, or if you want to save some cash then the Tamron 17-50 :thumbs:
 
well - having 2 out of 3 of those lenses, and being primarily a landscape shooter, either the 17-40 or the 15-85 will definitely work well. I have the 17-40 primarily as a wide zoom on full frame (old school full frame - EOS-3 35mm), though it's also very much at home as a sharp, weatherproof and rugged walkabout lens on the 7d. In questionable weather, I'd definitely be taking the 17-40 along rather than the 15-85. The 15-85 does have the advantage of a bit more reach at either end though, and is well enough built (if not quite L class) not to feel "wrong" on a solid semi-pro body like the 7D. I bought it as a kit with the 7d body, thinking i'd give it a try, and if I didn't like it, I'd move it on and put the money towards a 24-105L, but it's looking like it's booked a space in the camera bag for a while yet.

I know the third way - the 17-55 f2.8 - is faster glass, but in all honesty, its pretty seldom that i've ever shot landscapes wide open unless it's been on a T/S lens , and as the camera's on a tripod, the speed of the glass is a moot point.

So, my recommendation given your 550D isn't exactly weatherproof anyway, would most likely be the 15-85, unless you were thinking of going full-frame in the close future.
 
Last edited:
Some really interesting comments here, much appreciated. I'm starting to lean towards the two EF-S's as even though most of my favoutite shots are outside I would like it be a a fairly good all rounder and I think that full frame would be a number of years away.

Interesting that the Tamron gets a mention. Saving pennies is not the biggest concern as I would rather buy the best in my price range. But, many review sites say that Canon are the best for Canon. Are the any other lenses that would compete and perhaps offer more than the lenses I am looking at?
 
If you like landscapes why not try a UWA like the 10-22mm, you might find that stays on your camera a lot and still have the 17-85mm for other situations
 
Rich makes a good point there. You could also look at the 10-20mm Sigma, that get's really good reviews and seems pretty popular.

For another alternative, there is the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8, which has OS and HSM, doesn't go FF though, and it is much more expensive than the Tamron, a bit cheaper than the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top