lens questions

Paul11

Paul11

Paul11

Soldato
Joined
28 Sep 2003
Posts
10,407
Location
London
1) going on holiday to Thailand and thinking of buying a 18-200 lens to take with

are these good as an all round lens ?

2) if i buy a 17-55 F2.8 IS would that replace my 17 -40 F4 L in quality ?

3) is the 17-85 as good as the 17-55 ?

thanks in advance
 
Last edited:
I'm a nikon guy but:

2) 17-40L should have better quality than the 17-55 2.8 IS

17-55 is much better than the 17-85. I think even the 18-55 IS kit lens is better than the 17-85 IS
 
In terms of sharpness the 17-55 IS and the 17-40 is very close, some say the 17-40 has better contrast. The 17-40 certainly built better, being an L-Glass, however it is a stop slower, and also not as long, plus lacking the IS that the 17-55 has. Not that you really need IS at this range but that is another question and topic all together.
 
Raymond Lin said:
In terms of sharpness the 17-55 IS and the 17-40 is very close, some say the 17-40 has better contrast. The 17-40 certainly built better, being an L-Glass, however it is a stop slower, and also not as long, plus lacking the IS that the 17-55 has. Not that you really need IS at this range but that is another question and topic all together.
Click to expand...

ok, so that answers my question.. if i get the 17-55 because i need a faster lens (and longer reach) for indoor low light use, then i dont need to keep the 17-40L
 
Paulus said:
ok, so that answers my question.. if i get the 17-55 because i need a faster lens (and longer reach) for indoor low light use, then i dont need to keep the 17-40L
Click to expand...

Pretty much, the 17-55 actually worth and costs more than the 17-40L !
 
1. I wouldn't. The lens range is nice, but it's nowhere near the quality of the other lenses you are suggesting.

2. Yes. If you are happy with Ef-s lenses I'd take a 17-55 F2.8 IS over a 17-40 F4 L any day.

When people say "you don't need IS on this range" I don't believe them. I often run up against situations where the IS helps. Also, most reports I've read prefer the 17-55 f2.8 IS over the F4L. It is sometime subjectively quoted as "the best" canon fit non L zoom (better than lenses such as the 24(8)-70 F2.8L zooms).

3. Depends if you really mean the 17-55 IS, or if thats a typo and you mean either of the two 18-55 kit lenses available. My 17-85 IS is not very good, no where near as good as either of the two 24-85's I've had for years. it's slow, and not particularly sharp at anything but optimum apertures. It does though have an excellent zoom range. When I can afford to, i will be replacing it with either the 17-55 f2.8 IS, or a 24-105 F4 IS (though I already have a super wide sigma 10-22 to cover wide angles). If you can afford a 17-55 F2.8 IS, I would not consider the 17-85.


depending on where you go/what you do in Thailand, I would say that a "standard" type zoom would be better solution than a superzoom. When we (me and the wife) went last year, we seldom wanted a focal length longer that the 85mm we had as a max.
 
aztechnology said:
1. I wouldn't. The lens range is nice, but it's nowhere near the quality of the other lenses you are suggesting.

2. Yes. If you are happy with Ef-s lenses I'd take a 17-55 F2.8 IS over a 17-40 F4 L any day.

When people say "you don't need IS on this range" I don't believe them. I often run up against situations where the IS helps. Also, most reports I've read prefer the 17-55 f2.8 IS over the F4L. It is sometime subjectively quoted as "the best" canon fit non L zoom (better than lenses such as the 24(8)-70 F2.8L zooms).

3. Depends if you really mean the 17-55 IS, or if thats a typo and you mean either of the two 18-55 kit lenses available. My 17-85 IS is not very good, no where near as good as either of the two 24-85's I've had for years. it's slow, and not particularly sharp at anything but optimum apertures. It does though have an excellent zoom range. When I can afford to, i will be replacing it with either the 17-55 f2.8 IS, or a 24-105 F4 IS (though I already have a super wide sigma 10-22 to cover wide angles). If you can afford a 17-55 F2.8 IS, I would not consider the 17-85.


depending on where you go/what you do in Thailand, I would say that a "standard" type zoom would be better solution than a superzoom. When we (me and the wife) went last year, we seldom wanted a focal length longer that the 85mm we had as a max.
Click to expand...

thanks for the reply...

the 18-200 was just for the convenience of not having to carry more than one lens with me. so the question really is, is it acceptable IQ V's the convenience.

i have a 10-20, 50mm, 100mm, 17-40 and 75-300 but i dont want to take them all with me. i also wont get the 17-55 before thailand

yes i do mean the 17-55 IS.. but i would sell the 17-40L towards the purchase.
 
Last edited:
As you already have a 10-20, I would consider just adding the a 24-104 F4 IS L and just take those 2 to travel with.

I don't have, and haven't used an 18-200, so I can't say how good / bad it actually is. DPreview gave it a recommended with reservations review. I'm not sure how you'll know without trying one out.
 
I went to thialand over the summer and took three lenses with me, a sigma 17-70 a nifty fifty and an old 70-210 f4. The sigma was very rarely off the camera i'd say 90% of my good pics were with this lens, I used the nifty for some street stuff as it was much more discreet in the night markets and had the low light performance to let me get away with no flash. The 70-210 hardly came out at all, I'm not a wild life photographer and just could find a use for it in Thailand where I was mainly shooting land, city and sea scapes with some portraits thrown in. the one thing I really would have liked would have been an ultra wide like the 10-22 as the scenary is just breathtaking at times.

I guess what I'm trying to say is don't tie yourself into one compromise lens like the 18-200 while I'm sure it will be fine for a lot of situations come sun set you'll hate it's lack of speed and when you get home the distortions and lack of sharpness my dampen you enjoyment of the stunning scenary. Your used to L glass quality so I think you'll notice the step down.
 
aztechnology said:
similar sort of price range to the 17-55 IS though, which is why i mentioned it. :D
Click to expand...

yes, but i couldnt get both.. espcially as the 17-55 will be part funded by the sale of the 17-40 .. and that i was trying to find a cheap solution to the thailand dilema of carrying too many lenses..... :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom