What lens to get with 30D

Sticky-Ring · 7 Mar 2007 at 17:49

Ok so i am getting a 30D very shortly and was going to get the 17-85 F4-5.6 is usm lens with it. I have read a few bad reviews and wondered what you guys think of the lens and what you would get instead. It is to be used as a general walk about lens.

Scuzi · 7 Mar 2007 at 17:53

It really depends on what sort of photos you take. I use a 17-40mm f4L as a walkabout lense but even on a 1.6x crop body it might be a bit too wide for some people. What about the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L or the Canon 24-105mm f4L? Both lenses are excellent but are a bit pricey. What is your budget?

wgardiner · 7 Mar 2007 at 18:03

I dont believe 24mm is wide enough for a walk about lens, if I were in your position I'd go for the 17-85, or the 17-40 if you can afford it (and dont need to 40-85mm range).

The 17-85 is a decent lens, not canon's sharpest but it has the perfect walkaround range on a 1.6x crop and the IS is a bonus for low light photography. I ended up trading it for a 17-55IS because I wanted the larger aperture and the image quality, but its a fair whack in price.

Sticky-Ring · 7 Mar 2007 at 18:03

The 24-70 and 24-105 are a bit out of my budget i think. Looking to spend about 1100 including body from an online shop doing 12 months intrest free credit.I prety much take photos of anything i fancy at the time, but go to quite a few car shows and other events as well. Will be looking at getting a big zoom lens in the near future as well (bonus time soon). Does anyone rate the 17-85 F4-5.6is usm?

SDK^ · 7 Mar 2007 at 18:12

The Canon 17-85mm IS is an average lens. It's not that sharp, it's doesn't have a fast aperture and it's not built that well. However, it is cheap, wide, has a decent focus system (USM) and also IS.

If you are just starting out in photography then you'll probably find it meets your requirements.

nolimit · 7 Mar 2007 at 18:13

get yourself a Tamron 17-50 + Canon 30D.

and spend the remaining money on CF, Bag and Tripod.

or I suggest you get the Canon 30D with kit lens and get yourself a 70-200 if need extra reach for candid, portrait, park wildlife etc

MrScott · 8 Mar 2007 at 16:03

Another cheaper (By over £100!) alternative would be the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8 - 4.5 DC. It's nice and sharp, has a wider aperture, is quite well built and covers a decent focal range. It doesn't have stabilisation or HSM though, but focusing is reasonably fast and not too loud. I love mine

feenster99 · 8 Mar 2007 at 21:27

Just a quick one - I have a 17-85MM USM IS, and it's very sharp - nearly to the same amount as my 50mm MKII. I read the same reviews saying it wasn't a great lens, but it looks like mine is a good version :-)

It's definately worth trying one out.

Matt

Mohain · 8 Mar 2007 at 22:51

I don't own, but have full time access to the 17-85 IS and find it very sharp but it distorts badly at the wide end and it's not an even distortion so it can be difficult to correct in processing. The IS is nice but I'd rather have a similar zoom range with a constant f2.8, like the Tamron.

SDK^ · 8 Mar 2007 at 23:19

Mohain said:
I don't own, but have full time access to the 17-85 IS and find it very sharp.

Prime lens = very sharp with a wide open aperture
L zoom lens = Sharp wide open
Consumer zoom lens = Soft wide open but sharp from F8

Sticky-Ring · 9 Mar 2007 at 13:53

So from what everyone is saying is that the 17-85 is a good lens for the money? or should i just bite the bullet and get an L lens. Whats going to benefit me more long term, i meen spend an extra £100 or so now or end up selling the 17-85 later on for a better lens and risk losing some cash. Is IS really needed or just a nice feature to have?

danza · 9 Mar 2007 at 15:05

Sticky-Ring said:
So from what everyone is saying is that the 17-85 is a good lens for the money? or should i just bite the bullet and get an L lens. Whats going to benefit me more long term, i meen spend an extra £100 or so now or end up selling the 17-85 later on for a better lens and risk losing some cash. Is IS really needed or just a nice feature to have?

I'd say it's a nice feature to have really. Outright image quality is where it's at as far as I'm concerned. The 17-85 is obviously the better for walkabout purposes, but for wideish shots like landscapes, and if you decide landscapes is your thing, the 17-40 wins.

You could consider the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5. Apparently it is the better lens over the 17-85, in optical terms at least. It's about 1/3 cheaper too, and obviously usefully faster.

If I had the money for a 17-40/17-85, I'd avoid both. I'd save some ££'s and get the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for about £220, which is meant to be a cracker. It competes with the 17-40 in optical quality, but loses out on build/weather sealing/focus speed.

Raymond Lin · 9 Mar 2007 at 15:13

I wouldn't get the 17-85 might as well get the 18-55 and save some money towards an L-Glass later. The kit lens isn't bad at all, you just have to know its limits and the F-stop is quicker than the 17-85. You'll lose a little reach but it's no big loss for the money saved.

Psilonaught · 9 Mar 2007 at 18:37

17-85 is terrible, used to have one. 24-105 L is the best out there IMO

antc · 9 Mar 2007 at 18:43

Psilonaught said:
24-105 L is the best out there IMO

couldnt agree more. this lens is truely awesome

Geffen · 9 Mar 2007 at 21:38

If you don't want to spend Glass money then i would look at the Tameron 18-50mm F2.8

Matt Harper · 9 Mar 2007 at 21:41

SDK^ said:
The Canon 17-85mm IS is an average lens. It's not that sharp, it's doesn't have a fast aperture and it's not built that well. However, it is cheap, wide, has a decent focus system (USM) and also IS.

If you are just starting out in photography then you'll probably find it meets your requirements.

also don't forget about the sigma 24-70mm F2.8 (a lot cheaper then the Canon)

danza · 9 Mar 2007 at 23:09

I'm glad I'm not the OP, far too many decisions!

Sticky-Ring · 9 Mar 2007 at 23:20

danza said:
I'm glad I'm not the OP, far too many decisions!

Tell me about it :confused:

so if its a canon lens it realy needs to be an L? dont no much about Tamron lenses, are they as good as the L lenses?

Sleepyd · 9 Mar 2007 at 23:49

Sticky-Ring said:
Tell me about it so if its a canon lens it realy needs to be an L??

L lenses are good if you have the money, want to make huge prints, and have edge to edge sharpness. People on here recommend them readily because they're very good quality, and they assume you don't want to compromise with your purchases.

Realistically there are some great alternatives from third party lens manufacturers.

The 17-85 IS USM will be good as a walkabout lens, it might be the only lens you'll ever need. If you're going to print average sized prints then what does it matter about it being less sharp than the L lens which doesnt have IS and doesnt have the focal range? It's true that it has barrel distortion at the wide end and if that's going to be a major problem, then you can consider the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 which performs a little better in this area.

So, no, in my opinion you don't have to go for an L to get acceptable results. It's better to think practically about whether you'll be prepared to keep changing lenses, whether you shoot indoors, whether you shoot landscape or not, and whether you want a large focal range zoom or multiple lenses with shorter zoom ranges.

I'd recommend going to your local camera shop and actually trying them out.