Best Canon standard Zoom

Remember IS/OS/VC might be nice to have but its not always a necessity. The Tamron 2.8 non VC can be had for £215 or so new if you don't mind buying from HK.

If you want to cover more than a Canon EF-S 15-85mm IS would be better than the older model at around £450 (but its a slow lens)

As said if you have the money the Canon 2.8 17-55 OS is still meant to be a cracking lens, its just up to you if its worth twice the cost of the Tamron.

The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM as an L lens is going to give lovely quality but on a crop sensor you may find the 24mm a frustrating Focal Length to live with.
 
What about the Canon 17-40 F4L ?
I use this as my general lens and have always found the images first class and the lens is fast to focus in normal conditions.
 
There was one on sale recently in the MM

However the price was a fair bit high given the age of the lens and the seller didn't wanna budge.
 
The 17-40 is a nice lens in terms of focal length on a crop but it's really too expensive to justify it as it's only f/4, it's price is in keeping with it being full frame and 'L' quality.

I had the opportunity to use a 15-85 on a 7D last week actually and I was pleasantly surprised, it's a very nice lens if you don't mind it being a bit slower than some options, you also loose a little sharpness compared to more limited zoom range options.

The answer to the original question is the Canon 17-55 if you can find one in budget, on a crop it is the best standard zoom, no question.
 
The 17-55mm is the successor of the 17-85 AFAIK as when the 85 was made EOL they began making the 55.

Naturally I feel shorter zoom range mean sharper optics, although this isn't the case.

How do you feel about the 17-85 F4-5.6 IS USM? Currently under £300 on the rainforest :)
 
Lunawolfy said:
How long have you owned it?

Just been back on rainforest and noticed a lot of 18month horror stories :/
Click to expand...


er... about 3 years now - they tend to have a zoom problem.
An internal screw can come loose locking the lens in place.

Mine had this too and was fixed thought my travel insurance (would have cost £120 to fix)

if i was you i'd pick up a good condition second hand one for about £130-£160
 
stokecity_m said:
I own that lens, and its a great walk about lens.

You get some Chromatic aberration at 17mm though.
Click to expand...

CA is easily fixed in Lightroom or any decent RAW imaging software so this isn't an issue and the 17-85 has easily manageable CA anyway so even better.

If the softness wide open at the edges and the slower aperture isn't a bother then the 17-85 is a great lens to have and the IS works excellently. I had that lens for about 18 months before upgrading to the 17-55.

While it may not be wide enough, the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is a beautiful lens and sharp at all zooms wide open from edge to edge. It was so sharp that I was able to get macros of it such as toast crumbs.

You could then use a wide angle on its own when needed, decent ones from Sigma can be had down the line?
 
Last edited:
mrk said:
CA is easily fixed in Lightroom or any decent RAW imaging software so this isn't an issue and the 17-85 has easily manageable CA anyway so even better.

If the softness wide open at the edges and the slower aperture isn't a bother then the 17-85 is a great lens to have and the IS works excellently. I had that lens for about 18 months before upgrading to the 17-55.

While it may not be wide enough, the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is a beautiful lens and sharp at all zooms wide open from edge to edge. It was so sharp that I was able to get macros of it such as toast crumbs.

You could then use a wide angle on its own when needed, decent ones from Sigma can be had down the line?
Click to expand...

I've yet to see a 28-75 that is sharp to edges at f2.8, including the two I have had! It's not bad in the middle though.

A lens not being wide enough is entirely down to the photographer. Landscape etc. doesn't automatically mean ultra wide...
 
Rojin said:
I've yet to see a 28-75 that is sharp to edges at f2.8, including the two I have had! It's not bad in the middle though.

A lens not being wide enough is entirely down to the photographer. Landscape etc. doesn't automatically mean ultra wide...
Click to expand...

Agreed, at 2.8 the edges are really poor:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/418-tamron_2875_28_5d?start=1

I pondered over lot of these Tamron/Tokina/Sigma 24/28-60/75mm f/2.8 lenses for a cheap alternative to the Nikon but non of them seemed to be suitable alternatives.

If the lenses isn't very sharp at f/2.8 then it is not so useful to me. Soft edges maybe OK for some portrait work but I value edge to edge sharpness in a lot of my work.
 
Lunawolfy said:
But like 99% of lenses break inside 18 months :(
Click to expand...

The trouble you get is, people that have problems always post negative comments , where as people that don't tend not to post.


I did have a problem with mine but even if i hadn't had it repaired free, i would have purchased another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom