Canon Lens Help

[memento]

Why is the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 EF-S IS USM(Amazon-$484.99) more expensive
than the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM(Amazon-$384.95)?
Not only does the latter zoom further but it opens wider and yet it's $100 cheaper.

I have a two year old daughter and a three year old dog, neither of which sit still for longer than 5 seconds.
Would either of these lenses be good for "candid" photography?
ANY suggestions for a lens would be greatly appreciated.
I have around a $500 budget and it would be for a 30D.



There seems to be three categories; cheap, expensive and "L".
Is there a L lens that would be worth saving longer for? (seeing as how I'm half way there, generally speaking)
Another $500 would put me into November before I had it saved up.
Would it be worth the wait or maybe I should just get two or three cheap ones and learn how to use them????

 

[Big Mike]

Why is the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 EF-S IS USM(Amazon-$484.99) more expensive
than the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM(Amazon-$384.95)?
Not only does the latter zoom further but it opens wider and yet it's $100 cheaper.

The 1st one is longer but not wider. 28mm vs 17mm. The 28-135 does have a slightly larger max aperture at the wide end, but it's a small difference. Actually, they are very similar lenses, only the 17-18mm is one of the EF-S lenses, which is designed to be used only on the mid and entry level bodies.

As for why the 17-85 is more expensive...there could be many reasons. It's a newer model and I believe it has a newer version of Image Stabilization. Also, it's more in demand.

I have the 17-85 IS lens, it's a great lens. It's only major shortcoming is that it's got a small maximum aperture, especially at the long end of the zoom. The other lens has a similar problem. When there is plenty of light, it's a great lens to use. However, when the light is not great, shooting moving subjects can be tough. That is why I also have the Tamron 17-50 F2.8.

The Tamron is a great lens, with very good image quality. The wide aperture is really good to have.

The ideal lens in this range is the Canon EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS...however, it's very very expensive.

Yes, L lenses are expensive as well. However, they are top of the line. Many of them are weather sealed and their image quality is as good as you can get. The 17-40 F4 L is a fantastic lens with superb image quality. So is the 24-70 F2.8 L. Also, it should be noted that L lenses are a great investment compared to cameras and most lenses. Their resale value should remain at 80-90% of the retail price, even after years of use.

Do you need L quality lenses for shooting your kids and your dog?...probably not. But if you can afford it, you probably wouldn't be sorry.

It's up to you. The 17-85 IS, is a great lens but not so good for low light or action shots. The Tamron 17-50 F2.8 has a large aperture and high image quality (also see the Sigma 18-50 F2.8) and the price is less than half of the Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS. You could also look at the Canon 16-35 F2.8 L, the 17-40 F4L or something a little longer...but those are quite expensive.

 

[keith204]

I just received the Canon 17-85 IS. I purchased it because of the wider range and the slightly better reviews. I've used both the 17-85 and 28-135 before, and like both of them. The 17-85 just fit my needs a bit better now. I bought the USA model from www.sigma4less.com for about $489. They've had excellent service, I've bought a few lenses from them, and I will continue to buy from them.

I've seen in many topics Big Mike keeps mentioning the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. If you can deal with this range, I'd say go for it. For me, it's impractical for now, but down the road will likely be an investment. For shooting kids or a dog, this may be perfect...especially indoors where the 2.8 will become invaluable.

If you're not real sure for now, take a look at the Canon 28-105 USM 3.5-4.5 II. It's an exceptional lens for the price. You can buy it for about 180 used, and here in a couple months once you know more what you need, you can turn around and sell it for about the same. :thumbup: The aperture is good for a lens of that price, and the image quality is super. It's also very easy to carry around, as it's not much bigger than a stock 18-55.

 

[todd harrison]

I would have to say I would go with the 17-85mm. this would be more useful. they already explain as good as I could. so this is just my recommendation, but they are both great lenses.

 

[MikeR]

I have the 17-85 IS lens, it's a great lens. It's only major shortcoming is that it's got a small maximum aperture, especially at the long end of the zoom. The other lens has a similar problem. When there is plenty of light, it's a great lens to use. However, when the light is not great, shooting moving subjects can be tough. That is why I also have the Tamron 17-50 F2.8.

The Tamron is a great lens, with very good image quality. The wide aperture is really good to have.

.

Excellent lens ,retail is not more than $449 and Tamron is offering a $10 rebate, Form is on their website.

 

[memento]

Thanks for all the input! :cheers:

It sounds like I'm in the right ball park.
Except Big Mike has to go and through aperture in the mix. ugg


So how about this, spare NO expense, what lens would you recommend for shooting pictures like these,, using a Canon 30D...
(pics from crappy p&s that i'm replacing )

 

[Zoso]

I am currently also looking at something in about this range for the canon also, and they do get quite pricey, the 17-85 does go wider, but I would like something to go further for concerts, street photography and such

 

[Big Mike]

So how about this, spare NO expense, what lens would you recommend for shooting pictures like these,, using a Canon 30D...

Well, there are plenty of options...
The EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS. It's a great lens in this range with both a large aperture and IS. Expensive though.
There is the 16-35mm F2.8 L & the 17-40mm F4 L, both very good lenses. (L lenses are all very good.
You could go with a prime lens. The 24mm F1.4 L & the 35mm F1.4 L are both superb. The list goes on and on.

 

[astrostu]

To answer the original question, another reason the 17-55 mm could be more expensive is that it's harder to make a wider-angle lens without severe spherical aberration, and so you're paying for the optical engineering that went into it. And the fact that it's designed for the smaller 1.6x CCD crop (the EF-S lenses) mean that if it were used on a full-sensor or 35-mm film SLR, there would be a lot more vignetting than a normal lens.