Need a nice Canon walk around lens...

feRRari4756 · Apr 8, 2009

hmm i was just taking a look at the 17-85 and that looks like a good posibility. only downside is the aperture like you said.

how do you think the imagae quality of this lens is? is this also on par with the L series? and the build quality?

photogincollege · Apr 8, 2009

The lens will be pretty good. It wont get you into L lens territory, but thats not really what its meant to do. Its a pretty good image quality, very versatile lens. Though from what I've read on it it doesn't do so well on the wide angle end.

feRRari4756 · Apr 8, 2009

yea i was just reading some reviews to. i dont think it will do good on the wide angle end.

i tink im getting thw 1000 one.

thanks guys !

anubis404 · Apr 8, 2009

The 17-55mm is probably your best bet for a non L lens, and is a great walkaround lens on a DX body. However, if you can afford it, I would spring for the 24-105mm. Before you say it (for the fifth time), I know its an L lens, but its a great investment. Should you decide to go full frame, that 17-55 is going to become a shiny paperweight.

j-digg · Apr 9, 2009

(Assuming you didn't already purchase the lens you were interested in) How long is the coupon good for? Perhaps you could explore a different kind of photography and get a quality non L lens such as an EF 100mm 2.8 macro (for examples sake), save a decent amount of cash on something you may be interested in later anyhow and still have some cash left over to put towards a walk around L lens a bit later.

I'm sure this has crossed your mind, and I know how it is when you want something specific hehe.. just trying to help ya cover all bases I guess.

Chris of Arabia · Apr 9, 2009

anubis404 said:
Should you decide to go full frame, that 17-55 is going to become a shiny paperweight.

I have one of those shiny paperweights and I can't speak highly enough of them on a crop sensor body. Much of the stuff on my flickr site is taken with it. Check this image out, and bear in mind that the shot was taken at 1/3s hand held at f/2.8 - Replicant Soup

EhJsNe · Apr 9, 2009

I have an 80-200 for my NIkon camera, and canon makes a 70-300, im not sure which one, that Im sure would be great, and on B&H it was under 200 dollars.

Big Mike · Apr 9, 2009

Should you decide to go full frame, that 17-55 is going to become a shiny paperweight.

It could easily be sold for 80-90% of the purchase price. Good quality lenses hold their value very well.

anubis404 · Apr 9, 2009

Chris of Arabia said:
I have one of those shiny paperweights and I can't speak highly enough of them on a crop sensor body. Much of the stuff on my flickr site is taken with it. Check this image out, and bear in mind that the shot was taken at 1/3s hand held at f/2.8 - Replicant Soup

Hey, I'm not dissin the 17-55. I love my 18-50. However, I don't know what the posters intentions are, and with full frame becoming less and less expensive, and more popular, it would seem wiser to go with an FF lens.

Montana · Apr 9, 2009

I have to agree with Big Mike. That 17-55 will hold darn near all its value. It is, was, and always will be a fine piece of kit. Folks will always be wanting them. (so long as Canon continues with the EF EF-S mounts).

feRRari4756 · Apr 9, 2009

thanks eveyrone for the replies. I think Im going withthe 17-55.

I was just looking at ebay and you guys were right . they are getting 800 bucks no problem for those lenses!!! (used)

Im sure if i put it out there for 900 someone would come across and buy it.

so yeah, im probably getting that lens.

thank

FrankLamont · Apr 9, 2009

Before you do (I hope I'm in time), I'd suggest the 28-135mm IS.

It's a good lens, gives you a wider range. And it has IS, of course.

Montana · Apr 9, 2009

I have the 28-135, and I consider it to be the paperweight. LOL Seriously, I hate that lens. Others may or may not like it, but I find it worthless on crop sensor. I think the 17-55 is way better for a walk-about lens.

CxThree · Apr 10, 2009

IMHO the image quality on the 28-135 cannot touch the 17-55. Furthermore, the wide angle of the 17 -55 allows a lot of shots the 28-135 simply cannot take. If you need more focal range, use the old method. Walk.

NateWagner · Apr 10, 2009

yeah, I would definitely go with the 17-55 over the 28-135. First there is the fact that the 28-135 is a 3.5-5.6 lens, which makes the IS less useful indoors, as you will be stuck with a slow shutter speed and therefore have motion blur (there I would rather have the 2.8). Plus, the 17-55 is well known to have a better IQ. Of course, you do pay for it, as the 850+ of the 17-55 is quite a bit more than the 250 you might pay for the 28-135