Upgrade from Canon 17-85mm to?

AndyWest

AndyWest

Messages
8,400
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
I have recently bought a Canon 17-85 IS USM lens which I have tested and concur that it's pretty good, not stunning by any means but good. Thing is I have been spoiled by fast and very sharp prime lenses which make the 17-85 look poor in comparison so I would like to upgrade the Canon to something that will smack me sideways and call me Susan!:D (Higher IQ lens).

I have about £700ish budget but really don't know what to go for. I have searched this forum but nothing decisive has popped up except for the 17-55 f2.8 which seems to fit the bill perfectly but there seems to be an issue with dust getting into the lens! I was looking at the Canon 17-40L but the thought of this on a crop seems split 50/50 as to whether it is waisted on a crop camera (Canon 450d in my case). I have had a Tamron 17-50 but wasn't that impressed and the VC version seems to have build quality issues!

I think i could really do with IS or at least f2.8 as i'm a bit shakey when taking pics. I have not got any kind of medical condition (I don't think) it's just that i'm not good at handheld.

The other option was to go for Primes. I love the look of the siggy 30mm f1.4 and I thought maybe a 15mm manual focus lens for Tripod Landscapes.

Over to you::thinking:

EDIT: Just found the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX which sounds perfect! Just off to view image examples.
 
I love the Siggy fast primes and I have 20mm f1.8, 30mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.4.

I replaced my 17-85mm with a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (non VC) and I think that it's a good lens and very sharp. I don't use it much as I mostly use primes or a wide zoom but I don't regret getting it and moving the 17-85mm on despite the Tamron having less reach.
 
Andy,

I moved from the 17-85 (in fact your using my 17-85!) to a 17-55 2.8 and well the difference is insane. Absolutely brilliant for shooting in low lights inside with the constant 2.8 and IS. Seems to be a perfect range on a crop sensor too as the 24-105 isn't really wide enough in my opinion.

Don't let the dust issue put you off... yes they do attract dust BUT its really not a problem 99% of the time.

Have a look at this link... you'll soon realise dust shouldn't be a factor putting you off the 17-55....

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches


Alex
 
My upgrade path took me to the 17-55/2.8 IS USM and I'm more than happy with my decision. It's true that eventually dust does creep into the lens, but it is unlikely to impact IQ and it is a DIY job to get rid of it.

Instructions - http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/drp

If you fit a filter to the front it may stop dust entering the lens, but instead you may find it getting sucked into the camera body and ending up on the sensor, which will be more annoying in the long run, and the short run come to that. Quite simply, if you change the size of a lens, whether by zooming of focusing, air will have to move in and out to fill or vacate the space inside. Unless you have a lens with a more elaborate build quality then there is a chance that some dust will be in the air that goes inside. It's not as the the 17-55 is the only lens on the planet with the "problem". I've had mine since June 2007 and have had it apart once to blow out some tiny flecks of dust. It didn't need doing, but I thought "what the heck". There have been no nasty consequences from my little procedure.
 
Don't know why you were not impressed with Tamron 17-50 (non IS), it was a lot better than the 17-85 except IS.

If you are after image quality and be able to shoot handheld in dimly lit environment, then go for fast primes like EF 50 f1.4 and EF 85 f1.8. I have those lenses and they beat my 24-70L in certain circumstances. They are also as sharp if not sharper than the L lens.

==========
tdodd said:
If you fit a filter to the front it may stop dust entering the lens, but instead you may find it getting sucked into the camera body and ending up on the sensor, which will be more annoying in the long run,
Click to expand...

Quite interesting, I prefer dust going in the sensor as I can easily clean it than lenses.
 
As alex says above, the 17-55mm is brilliant! Also it seems to be the only walkaround zoom with a f2.8 aperture for less than £1000 (the other being the 16-35mm f2.8 L). The downside of course is that it isn't an L-series lens meaning it won't fit full frame cameras should you ever wish to upgrade and it doesn't have the same build quality or seals.

Don't worry about dust the dust though, it won't affect the image at all. It's like having scuffs on a camera body, it won't affect the operation or quality of the pics but might affect the resale value in the lens slightly.
 
Right.... I think the 17-55 f2.8 IS will be the right lens as it fits all the requirements i'm after. I have read that they use L glass but can't call it an L as it doesn't fit FF cameras.

Time to sort the finances! Thanks guy's :)
 
I'm interested in the outcome of this thread myself - again I've around £700 for a lens that can hopefully cover walkabout duty on the digital, but in my case, I'd really like it to work with full frame (film rather than digital for the short-medium term) and I've been wondering about the 17-40 f4 L. I'm mainly a landscape/architectural type of bloke - not too bothered about shooting people so wide aperture 50-105mm stuff's not at much of a premium for me. I've currently got the bog standard combo for the 450D - the 18-55 and 55-250 lenses, plus a nifty-50, which mainly ends up on the EOS-3 film camera as it's a bit long on a crop sensor for my needs. I've also a really nice example of a EF28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM which does "kit lens" duty for the EOS-3, and the obligatory 10-20 sigma UWA for the Digi. So - my thinking at the moment is

1) get a 17-40 f4 L
2) keep the 28-105 USM for the intermediate lengths
3) keep the 10-20 sigma for wide duty on the 450d
4) keep the nifty 50 for occasional fast glass needs.
5) when funds allow sell off the 55-250 and get a 70-200 f4 L

so I'd be covered from 10mm - 200mm on the digital and 17-200 on film which after looking at my photos over the last year or so, covers maybe 95% of my shots - the rest probably being "effective length equivalents" from concert snapshots taken with my TZ-6 point and shoot :lol: It'd also leave me fairly well positioned if I were to upgrade digital bodies when I get completely fed up with how small and fiddly the 450D is.
 
I won't be going FF so the 17-55 seems to be the very best lens for crop and ideal for my 450d.
 
From the reviews I have read the 17-40 has not got better optics and yes I need the f2.8 and IS. If the 17-40 had IS or was f2.8 then I would have that but then it would be £200-£300 more.
 
strobemonkey said:
Quite interesting, I prefer dust going in the sensor as I can easily clean it than lenses.
Click to expand...

In the four years I have owned digital SLRs (six of them) I have only ever performed one wet clean to the sensor and that was to my 30D (the first one I bought) after well over a year of use. I don't recall the last time I puffed a sensor, certainly not since I got my 7D and 5D2 last November, and I think probably not once throughout 2009 with my 1D3 and 50D.

So sensor dust is a complete non issue for me. I wouldn't wish it to become one. :)
 
When it comes down to it, it has to be a compromise... Ideally I'd get myself one of those pin sharp 17-105mm f/1.8 L jobbies for £500, but I've heard they're hard to get hold of :suspect: ;)

When I stopped the 17-55 down to f4 the 17-40 was sharper
Click to expand...
If you want the faster glass (in my opinion more important!) you may have to sacrifice a little bit of sharpness compared to the 17-40mm. Again, a matter of opinion!
 
15-85? Apparently better optics and you get an extra 2mm on the wide end.
 
I think its very difficult for us (crop camera users) to choose a lens because of the crop factor.
If we all have FF cameras, its easier to choose the perfect lens.

This is my way of thinking when buying a lens, its inevitable, that in the near future, most / many of us will upgrade to FF. In that case, the lens I buy now must be future proof - that is it must be compatible to FF camera so EF-S lenses are a no no for me. That makes it easier to decide which lens to buy now...

My perfect lens would be 17-200 f1.4L which is always out of stock. So I now have a 24-70L, 50 1.4, and 85 1.8. I'll buy the rest when I have the money to spend.
 
I think its very difficult for us (crop camera users) to choose a lens because of the crop factor.
If we all have FF cameras, its easier to choose the perfect lens.
Click to expand...
I disagree; all EF, EF-S and L lenses fit cropped sensor so 400/500D and 40/50D users can choose from anything. The only factor is the 1.6 conversion in focal length surely?

This is my way of thinking when buying a lens, its inevitable, that in the near future, most / many of us will upgrade to FF. In that case, the lens I buy now must be future proof - that is it must be compatible to FF camera so EF-S lenses are a no no for me. That makes it easier to decide which lens to buy now...
Click to expand...
I agree most will eventually upgrade to FF but I know it won't be any time soon for me. I wouldn't want an f/4 lens such as the 17-40mm just in case I upgraded in the future when I can utilise the f2.8.

Suppose it depends on where you see yourself in 2 years financially! (<<My outlook is bleak :D)
 
trencheel303 said:
15-85? Apparently better optics and you get an extra 2mm on the wide end.
Click to expand...

Apart from the loss in speed (aperture), when you shoot using manual exposure that variable max aperture when zooming may drive you nuts. It would me. My 100-400/4.5-5.6 might just as well be a 100-400/5.6 because I never open it up wider than f/5.6. I don't want my exposures changing simply because I zoom a little bit. Fortunately, every other lens I now use is a fixed f/2.8 max aperture or faster.

Apart from the impact on exposure, f/2.8 means better AF performance, a brighter viewfinder, and more options for DOF control. If you shoot with a crop body then having f/2.8 at your disposal may be more important than with full frame, where f/4 will do you at least equally as well in terms of DOF and noise.
 
Digital_Clarity said:
Ideally I'd get myself one of those pin sharp 17-105mm f/1.8 L jobbies for £500, but I've heard they're hard to get hold of :suspect: ;)
Click to expand...

Ive got one you can have for £199 ;)

trencheel303 said:
15-85? Apparently better optics and you get an extra 2mm on the wide end.
Click to expand...


A decent lens by all accounts but not 2.8 all the way through is it (which I think is whats swaying the OP to the 17-55).
 
a lex said:
A decent lens by all accounts but not 2.8 all the way through is it (which I think is whats swaying the OP to the 17-55).
Click to expand...

It's not, but compromise... the IS is canon's 4 stop IS, so he'll easily be able to take shake free pics.

The thing is, the 17-55 is not really a replacement for a 17-85 as you lose that long end. 15-85 is an almost identical focal length. You need to decide whether you want the 2.8 or the extra longer end.
 
The thing is, the 17-55 is not really a replacement for a 17-85 as you lose that long end.
Click to expand...
That's true and even more so with the 17-40mm, but you can always go on wanting a longer and longer top end, but I don't think it's a problem a quick crop won't sort :)
 
I would never reccommend cropping over having a longer focal length as you're relying on the resolution of the glass and the sensor coping with tight crops all the time. Why do that when you can just have longer glass?
 
I would never reccommend cropping over having a longer focal length as you're relying on the resolution of the glass and the sensor coping with tight crops all the time. Why do that when you can just have longer glass?
Click to expand...
Well clearly you can't have both long focal length and f2.8 throughout the range (unless you get this!). If you have the 17-55mm and you're taking a pic of something just out of reach, either buy a new lens or just accept a very small amount of crop if you want to tweak the composition.
I'm still siding with having low light performance.
 
Well i have just bought (new) a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 NON VC version and am hoping that the f2.8 will be fast enough that i don't have to worry about shake too much. I have a monopod that i can use and a tripod for when i'm taking pics of things that need a tripod so i should be covered....i hope!

I bought this because above all others this is the lens that most people have been banging on about so i'm going to give it a 2nd chance! :nuts:
 
Congrats and enjoy your new toy!

AndyWest said:
Well i have just bought (new) a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 NON VC version and am hoping that the f2.8 will be fast enough that i don't have to worry about shake too much. I have a monopod that i can use and a tripod for when i'm taking pics of things that need a tripod so i should be covered....i hope!

I bought this because above all others this is the lens that most people have been banging on about so i'm going to give it a 2nd chance! :nuts:
Click to expand...
 
strobemonkey said:
I think its very difficult for us (crop camera users) to choose a lens because of the crop factor.
If we all have FF cameras, its easier to choose the perfect lens.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily! After a lot of thinking, my perfect lens setup on a crop is a 17-40 and a 50. The 17-40 covers most bases while I can whip out the 50 for low light/bokeh shots. On a full frame camera the rough equivalent would be 24-70 and an 85... not much difference in end result except the 24-70 would cost me more! I actually like the fact that crop factor exists, you get the best part of the lens among other things.


AndyWest said:
Well i have just bought (new) a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 NON VC version and am hoping that the f2.8 will be fast enough that i don't have to worry about shake too much. I have a monopod that i can use and a tripod for when i'm taking pics of things that need a tripod so i should be covered....i hope!

I bought this because above all others this is the lens that most people have been banging on about so i'm going to give it a 2nd chance! :nuts:
Click to expand...


Congrats...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top