Canon 17-85

Discussion in 'Canon' started by piterengel, Sep 3, 2008.

  1. piterengel

    piterengel Guest

    Hi people, I have the opportunity to buy an EOS 40D with Canon 17-85
    zoom lens. I've no doubt about camera, what about the lens? It seems
    ok for travelling, both for weight and for covered focal range, and
    for the cost too! Please let me know your opinions. Thanks all.
    P.
     
    piterengel, Sep 3, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. piterengel

    Böwser Guest

    I used one of these on a 20D for a year, and it's a good lens. Not a great
    lens, and not as well made as Canon's "L" series lenses, but it is a nice
    light travel lens, and can produce a nice sharp image with few exceptions
    (wide open at the tele end is a little soft). Go for it.
     
    Böwser, Sep 3, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. piterengel

    piterengel Guest

    Well, in the meanwhile I've red something on photozone.de about Canon
    17-55 f/2.8 and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. They seem not to be so different,
    except for price! Of course Canon is better, but Tamron is NOT ugly!
    So I'm thinking about the idea to buy Tamron's one. Any comment about
    this?
    See you
     
    piterengel, Sep 5, 2008
    #3
  4. "piterengel" <> a écrit dans le message de
    Well, in the meanwhile I've red something on photozone.de about Canon
    17-55 f/2.8 and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. They seem not to be so different,
    except for price! Of course Canon is better, but Tamron is NOT ugly!
    So I'm thinking about the idea to buy Tamron's one. Any comment about
    this?


    ===================

    The Canon as IS and USM not the Tamron. And the Tamron is not that great if
    I remember. I am suprised you think that they are not "so different".
     
    Maurice Blanchard, Sep 5, 2008
    #4
  5. piterengel

    piterengel Guest

    I've simply red the comments on photozone.de Of course Canon is
    better. There is another consideration in my opinion. In a couple of
    years surely we have "economic" full frame cameras, so 17-55 and 17-50
    will be unusable on these bodies, being projected for a more little
    sensor. So, why buy a much more expensive lens? I'm not a
    professionist and I'm asking to myself if it is really a good idea to
    buy a wonderful lens or if it is better to have a good lens...
     
    piterengel, Sep 6, 2008
    #5
  6. piterengel

    jimkramer Guest

    I've simply red the comments on photozone.de Of course Canon is
    better. There is another consideration in my opinion. In a couple of
    years surely we have "economic" full frame cameras, so 17-55 and 17-50
    will be unusable on these bodies, being projected for a more little
    sensor. So, why buy a much more expensive lens? I'm not a
    professionist and I'm asking to myself if it is really a good idea to
    buy a wonderful lens or if it is better to have a good lens...


    Based on that well thought out rational why are you even looking at a
    "Canon", there are plenty of other "good" camera makers out there? Certainly
    for less cost.
    -Jim
     
    jimkramer, Sep 6, 2008
    #6
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.