Canon walkabout lens Q

[JABB]

Looking for a walkabout lens for my 40d. I am looking at the Canon 17-85 F4-5.5.
This looks a good lens but a little slow.
How would it compare to say the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.0?
What else at sub £200 secondhand would you look at?
Would I be better going faster? I would mainly be outdoors, but would want some indoor shooting to.

[RobDickinson]

IMO 17-85 is a poor lens.

Slow, distorts, soft, has lots of CA. the new 18-55Is kit lens is optically better.

It is built OK and has proper USM .

I'd look at a 17-70f2.8-4.5 OS

[N88]

I was just about to post a link to a topic on Talk Photography that was similar, then I realised you are in fact the topic creator!

[JABB]

It was my thread but I wanted a more balanced look to my thoughts. Sometimes on there technical gets in the way or reality

[Crafty_]

the 15-85 is a better lens than the 17-85 I believe, but it is twice the price!
Look to see if you can get a "white box" one - its the kit lens for the 7D, every so often you see kit lenses being sold off separately.

[S47]

Agree with above comment - 17-85 is a very poor lens, not tried the 15-85 but it's a lot of £'s for a standard 'Kit lens'. My suggestion would be the cheap EFS18-55 IS 'Kit lens' which is excellent - otherwise you'll need to buy a decent 'L' zoom.
hope this helps

[Mr E Driver]

24-105 is my walkabout lens on my 7d

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[JABB]

Hmmm, sub £200 - £250 please!!!

[Gold]

I have the Sigma 17-70 which is good but sometimes I wish I'd got the Tamron 17-50 with the constant wider f2.8 aperture. Depends on whether you want reach or speed.

[-Pete-]

My everyday lens is a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di which was about £300 five years ago. I think it's really good, only downside is that it will extend under it's own weight unless you click the lock on. I have no problem with that at all, and the picture quality is really good.

[JABB]

Gold. I think I would prefer the length over speed.
Pete, do you not find that a bit long at the short end? What do you take most shots of?

[RobDickinson]

I'd go mad with 24 or 28 on a crop. Tho I do shoot more landscapes than much else.

17-50 tamron used?

This is £220

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Tamron-AF17-50mm-F-2-8-D...

[-Pete-]

Although I'd love to think a 10x zoom could be good, I note the fact that high quality lenses are rarely more than 3x. So faced with the choice of (using old fashioned 35mm terminology) 28-80mm or ~50-120mm I find the latter more useful.

My preference is portrait and 'detail' photography, if you want landscape or architecture then you need a decent wide angle lens. I have an old Tamron 19-35mm for this kind of thing, but rarely use it... it's very good for group shots or interiors and landscapes though.

I love large aperture lenses, I tried some IS lenses but didn't really see the point, they're probably cheaper than large glass elements though. I have a Canon 50mm f1.8 and the pictures are good, but I find it a bit limiting. I did use a 135mm f2 prime on my old film camera, it was perfect for portraits, so I'd be tempted to buy a Canon 85mm prime... but the Tamron is close enough and much more flexible.

So the 28-75 lives on my camera, the Canon equivalent was 2.5x the price so there was no competition.

[binliner]

At that price range there will always be a compromise somewhere but I'd go for the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 (non vc) it's a very sharp lens, constant aperture and within the budget.

[craikeybaby]

Looking outside of the box, how about a 30mm(ish) prime?

[kybo]

I used to have a Canon 28-135mm IS as a walkabout lens 'til I replaced it with a Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 OS.

Can't say I've noticed any great difference in focusing speed (not compared them) but missed the reach for a while; I get great crops from the 17-70 so don't miss that now.

Found both to be good quality (for me) but I'm no expert in such IQ matters.

Used, but never owned, a Sigma 18-50 F2.8 and that produced extremely good images.

AIMHO.

Scott

[markmullen]

As a balance when I used a 450d I went from the 18-55 non-IS to the 17-85 and found it a worthwhile upgrade. Sure it is not a patch on the 24-105 I use now as my walkabout but it was better built, higher IQ and with IS which I didn't have on the old kit lens.

[KevSeymour]

The 17-85 was my first "proper" lens purchase for my 400d, i used it as my walkabout lens for about 18 months and for outdoor shots with loads of natural light i couldn't really fault it - but it was very poor in low light.

So i sold it and upgraded to the Tamron 17-50 which was great on my 400d and now even better on my 7d. I do miss the reach from time to time tho, so i'm looking out for something with more legs to add to my kit.