DSLRUsers.com

Dear learned Canon people,

My mate has just purchased a Sigma 70-200 2.8 for his 350D (with my influence) and he is now noticing the the limitations and lack of clarity of the 350 D Kit Lens which is I think 18-55 or close. He is on the prowl for a walk around to match my Nikon 24-120 which I have been parading in front of him recently. Its a mate rivalry thing.

I know Canon has a 28-135 and a 17-85. The 24-70 Canon 2.8 is a bit pricey for him. Do any of you Canon users or other interested parties know which is the best 'slightly longer reach' all rounder from Canon? Even consider 3rd party lenses.

Any help appreciated as I like to pretend I know more about photography than my mate and want to keep this pretence alive.

Peter Mc

Have a look at the 17-40mm F4. If one day he goes full frame (5D), this lens will be a keeper too.

petermmc wrote:Any help appreciated as I like to pretend I know more about photography than my mate and want to keep this pretence alive.

Peter Mc

I take it you wont be mentioning DSLRUsers to him then!

petermmc wrote:
Any help appreciated as I like to pretend I know more about photography than my mate and want to keep this pretence alive.

Peter Mc

You are in good company here

Yeah! I introduced him to F Stops and their relationship to depth of field and its like a kid with a new toy. Now he doesn't even like talking about lenses more than 2.8. I don't know much more than this so I will have to make some techo stuff up.

Peter Mc

petermmc wrote:I don't know much more than this so I will have to make some techo stuff up.

Peter Mc

Obviously working the same way I do round here

17-40 would probably be a good walk around lens.

Another one to look at would be the 17-85mm IS, i a few ppl on OCAU swear by that lens as a great walk around lens.

My walk around lens for my canon is the tamron 28-75mm yeah it lacks in the wide end department but its constant f2.8 and pic quality up there with the 24-70L makes up for it. For the wide end i'll turn to my sigma, i managed to get my 28-75 for about $650, but if you hunt around or purchase from the net, i'm sure you'll be able to find it much cheaper.

All else fails you can advise him to go for the sigma 18-50mm f2.8 which is around 600 or so shipped from overseas, there are some users on dpreview that swear by the sigma, have compared the quality to the 17-40, the only thing to remember is its a "DC series" lens so if ever he upgrades to full frame, he won't be able to use its designed and can only be used by 1.6x crop sensors.

Thanks Mr Caesar

I've heard the Tamron 28-75 is a beauty. The problem with the 17-40 is that it is still a bit narrow in its reach. Not a problem per se (using latin in respect of your pseudonym). The Sigma also sounds good. Sigma seem to be coming to the party at last with a few great contenders.

Tempus fugit

Peter Mc

petermmc wrote:Sigma seem to be coming to the party at last with a few great contenders.

Tempus fugit

Peter Mc

Very true!!

I'm a great fan of their 10-20mm and their 150mm macro. If it wasn't for the 82mm filter size on the 24-70mm i would have purchased that too, instead of the tamron.

If they ever created a 70-200 OS, then i'll probably be one of the first there, saving for the 70-200 IS canon is proving to be rather difficult

I also love how the EX series have cases specfically for the lens and their build quality, both of the hood and lens (well that's how it is from the 2 EX series lenses i've got)

The 17-40 F4L (which I own) is a very good lens.

However, if he doesn't need such wide angle, the 24-105 IS lens just recently annouced would also be a good companion. It is better than the 17-85 EF-S IS or 28-135 IS lenses, optically, and has IS to boot.

I owned the 17-85IS lens as my walk around lens, it does take beautiful images in most condition, and the IS feature is very useful.
But as mentioned it is only for a digital body, so be aware of that if you want to upgrade the body in the future.
I recently upgraded to the 17-40L, there is a difference in quality and colours straight from the lens, but the 17-40 obviously doesn’t have the range.
I will probably miss the extra reach of the 17-85 but am much happier with the images I am now getting, and I do prefer to shoot wide.
Marty

Another vote for the 17-40 f4 here . As a walk around i think its great . Really depends a lot on when he's doing his walking around though i guess . Due to the f4 . Low light may be the killer .