Canon 40D 17-85 lens upgrade
Discussion
Canon do one lens in this range and Sigma and Tamron do one or two each. USM is the Canon name for an ultrasonic autofocus motor. Ultrasonic motors can be quieter and faster than the normal sort. Anyway, the Canon lens doesn't USM and I don't know if any of the Sigma or Tamron have their equivalent.
The Canon lens will probably be marginally better, but then it'll be more expensive too. You have to weigh up whether it's worth it for you.
The Canon lens will probably be marginally better, but then it'll be more expensive too. You have to weigh up whether it's worth it for you.
aabbaa1980 said:
i suppose what i was looking for is a better zoom then the 17-85 but i do not want to compromise on the picture quality. I was hoping to just have one len for ease of use.
Do you lovely folks think maybe i should buy an addition lens then for my needs? maybe something else?
What sort of photography do you enjoy?Do you lovely folks think maybe i should buy an addition lens then for my needs? maybe something else?
If you want to take lots of (motor)sports, then you'd struggle with an 18-200 type lens because they're all very slow.
If your one true passion in life is landscapes, then maybe look at something like a Sigma 10-20.
If you're into portraits, then get a nifty fifty.
If you're really after doing as much as possible with just one lens, then go for a superzoom (I think the latest Tamron one is something like 18-270mm?) but don't expect the best image quality known to man.
okay... i like landscape shots so i think i will be getting a 10-20 lens. Even though my lens is 17-85 is it still worth buying the 10-20?
Also, i want to take pics of flowers close up. The 17-85 is okay but i find i can not get that close.
i am clueless as you can tell. its my first SLR.. i have only had the canon ixus and sony T7 before this...! i love my 40D... wanted to make the most of it!
Also, i want to take pics of flowers close up. The 17-85 is okay but i find i can not get that close.
i am clueless as you can tell. its my first SLR.. i have only had the canon ixus and sony T7 before this...! i love my 40D... wanted to make the most of it!
Edited by aabbaa1980 on Wednesday 8th July 17:14
A 10-20 is too specialised, if you want to be the most flexible (as the 'superzooms' aren't as fast as most lenses) then get a wide angle (18-55 or similar) for landscapes and portraits, then get a cheap 70-300 zoom or thereabouts if you want to do nature, sports or whatever.
Lenses don't lose much value though (especially if you can buy 2nd hand to start with), so could be well worth getting the 18-200 if you're not sure what you want now.
Lenses don't lose much value though (especially if you can buy 2nd hand to start with), so could be well worth getting the 18-200 if you're not sure what you want now.
aabbaa1980 said:
okay... i like landscape shots so i think i will be getting a 10-20 lens. Even though my lens is 17-85 is it still worth buying the 10-20?
Also, i want to take pics of flowers close up. The 17-85 is okay but i find i can not get that close.
i am clueless as you can tell. its my first SLR.. i have only had the canon ixus and sony T7 before this...! i love my 40D... wanted to make the most of it!
Aha! You start to realise where all your spare cash is going to go from now and forever more! Also, i want to take pics of flowers close up. The 17-85 is okay but i find i can not get that close.
i am clueless as you can tell. its my first SLR.. i have only had the canon ixus and sony T7 before this...! i love my 40D... wanted to make the most of it!
For whether a 10-20 wide angle is worth it, only you can decide, but in terms of difference, that comes from the percentage difference, so a 10mm difference between 10 and 20mm is halving the field of vision, whereas a 10mm difference between 50 and 60mm is only taking off 20% or so.
To illustrate this, I've just taken the following snaps out of our bedroom window. Apologies to the perfectionists for the wonky horizons and the like! All the shots were taken with the lens up against the (rather dirty
) window, so are all from exactly the same distance....10mm
20mm
50mm
60mm
For the close ups of flowers and stuff, you can buy extension tubes to go between your 17-85 and the camera body. You won't get quite the image quality of a dedicated macro lens, but as a starting point, it's a lot cheaper.
HTH.
IMO the 17-85 is distinctly average picture quality already. Its soft wide open, not realy sharp stoped down, slow, has CA and distortion.
Your not going to improve that situation with an 18-200 either.
Do you want mroe focal lengths, if so then do what an SLR is meant to do, use multiple lens's.
Get a 18-50f2.8 (tamron) and canons 55-250IS which is fairly cheap and decent quality.
Your not going to improve that situation with an 18-200 either.
Do you want mroe focal lengths, if so then do what an SLR is meant to do, use multiple lens's.
Get a 18-50f2.8 (tamron) and canons 55-250IS which is fairly cheap and decent quality.
RobDickinson said:
Do you want mroe focal lengths, if so then do what an SLR is meant to do, use multiple lens's.
Take that to it's logical conclusion and you should only use prime lenses. For some people though, the lesser image quality of zooms is worth it for the extra convenience and for some people the image quality of an 18-200 lens is worth it for the convenience. Yeah sure, I'd be happy with a bag full of primes. My zooms are (and probably most other peoples) pin'd to one end or the other anyhow.
I guess it depends on what you find acceptable, I personaly wouldnt be happy with the quality I would get out of the 17-85 or the 18-200, tho I would consider one as a one lens do it all holiday lens.
I guess it depends on what you find acceptable, I personaly wouldnt be happy with the quality I would get out of the 17-85 or the 18-200, tho I would consider one as a one lens do it all holiday lens.
Kermit power - your a legend! Cant believe you did all of that for my post!
Thanks a million..
i need to have a proper read and look at lunch time!
I am off to North Wales in a few months, so i defo need to change/buy a lens by then... just need to work out what lens! Wide angle shots are impressive for sure!
Thanks a million..
i need to have a proper read and look at lunch time!
I am off to North Wales in a few months, so i defo need to change/buy a lens by then... just need to work out what lens! Wide angle shots are impressive for sure!
Edited by aabbaa1980 on Thursday 9th July 10:39
aabbaa1980 said:
Okay so this is what i am thinking... my line up would be ...
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM IS (need to buy)
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS (my existing lens)
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS (need to buy)
What do you guys think?
When I was looking for a wide angle, the Sigma 10-20 beat the Canon 10-22 in every single test I managed to lay my hands on, and it's around £100 cheaper as well. Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM IS (need to buy)
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS (my existing lens)
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS (need to buy)
What do you guys think?
Looks like a nice collection of things to buy! 
Depending on how much stretch you need, may be worth considering the Canon 28-135IS?
I bought that for my 40D instead of the 17-85IS and find it brilliant.
I pretty much used it all day at the FoS (beyond the extra stretch of my 70-200F4L!) as it's quite a versatile lens.
Not quite wide enough for decent car shots, but I'd sooner sacrifice IQ than a lens that's soft at either (short or long) extreme!
Depending on how much stretch you need, may be worth considering the Canon 28-135IS?
I bought that for my 40D instead of the 17-85IS and find it brilliant.
I pretty much used it all day at the FoS (beyond the extra stretch of my 70-200F4L!) as it's quite a versatile lens.
Not quite wide enough for decent car shots, but I'd sooner sacrifice IQ than a lens that's soft at either (short or long) extreme!
aabbaa1980 said:
Okay so this is what i am thinking... my line up would be ...
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM IS (need to buy)
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS (my existing lens)
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS (need to buy)
What do you guys think?
The Canon 10-22 is not and IS lens.Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM IS (need to buy)
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS (my existing lens)
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS (need to buy)
What do you guys think?
17-85 was designed as a digital version of the 28-135 walkaround lens (equivalent range). Sadly it suffers from cronic barrel distortion which is why I sold mine. Smae of the effects can be fixed in DPP etc with the correct settings from RAW but that's not the point.
I'd personally go with the Sigma 10-20 rather than the Canon, cheaper and better image quality based on trial shots I did at a store open day. If you are useing it for landscape then stop down to at least F8 to loose the CA.
The Canon 70-300 IS may be worth a look as it is well thought of. It's more than the EF-S 55-250 but give a longer range at the long end as a swap for the short end you alrady have covered.
Just remember, the longer the range the greater the compromise you are buying and you get what you pay for.
Get yourself and your camera to a decent dealer and do some trial shots and get a feel for the options for balance etc. You have to make the call but all of the options you are considering are good, the biggest factor that will influence your selection is likely to be cash (17-40L, 24-105L, 100-400L or 70-200L?)
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff