Need advice on lens choices

[greggf]

for what it's worth, the 18-200 is a great walk around lens, a 'one-lens-does-it-all', so you might be happy in that respect. The optics aren't going to compare with the other two lenses you're considering purchasing, but, they also don't haave the range. OTOH, nothing compares to 70-200 f4IS, as far as I am concerned. a fantastic lens, and I do mean FANTASTIC! It is a little long on a crop, so you will need a shorter lens(like you are thinking of purchasing). The 17-55IS is agood lens,but it is very, very pricey(considering it's not an "L"). In that respect, I would consider the Tamron 17-50. The optics are just as good as the 17-55IS, and costs half as much, therefore saving you money in the long run(possibly to buy a prime(Sigma 30 1.4 comes to mind). Another option, also, is the Canon 17-40 f4 L, which loses some length, a stop, but is alot cheaper, has great optics, and would work very good for what you are considering doing. You could also rent any of these lenses(lensrental.com), and come up with your own informed decision, which will give you a great hands on experience!! Thanx for listening, Gregg.

[quattrophinia]

Thank you for that Gregg, good points..

[Madison]

Gregg: The 17-55 may not be 'L' but have you seen the pictures? Many reviewers say it is absolutely L quality. The quality of the 17-55 2.8 is through the roof. It's the weather sealing that breaks the L deal but in terms of image quality I was blown away.


Check out the review:


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


Let me quote: 'As it turns out, my 17-55 matches or exceeds the optical performance of my L-Series zooms in this similar focal length range ...'





So it is well worth the price and investment. (And I am sorry to say but I didn't think the Tamron you mention in your post is nearly as good as you make it out to be. It's cheaper, but the quality is far less than the 17-55). (And yes, I had both lenss when I shot with a crop body). Just my two cents.

[quattrophinia]

I agree with you Madison, I have already decided to get it as it gets killer reviews. Some people wonder why it's not an L lens, only Canon knows...


[]

[Rob Gardner]

Apparently, according to Chuck Westfall, Canon will not call any EF-S lens a "L" lens because it does not fit on full frame or 1.3x crop cameras. But for all intents and purposes, the 17-55mm f/2.8 EF-S is a "L" lens in terms of optical quality.

[quattrophinia]

Interesting, thanks..

[greggf]

I also have had both before I switched to FF, and I do like the 17-55, BUT, is it really worth more than TWICE the Tamron?? If you look at Brian's ISO comparisons, the Tamron is actually just as sharp or sharper at almost all comparable settings....which leads me to believe that is the Tamron is a great lens for the price. Sure you lose IS, which I like very much....in these hard times, think in my own opinion, that I would like to save $400-500 on a lens to keep for other things-i.e., flash, prime, or to keep a little something in my pocket. Just my two cents...G

[Madison]

For me, the IS alone is worth the difference. As is the build quality. But you're right: those choices are so personal and differ between people.
The price difference is quite big. Tamron is great for the price, and you could invest in an extra prime. True With economic problems everywhere, I canno judge if anybody should or could afford to spend the cash on the 17-55.
I did, and never regretted it. The Tamron had less real world oomph than the 17-55 had for me. Perhaps I had a bad copy. It happened with a 24-105 as well.





One thing that did bug me about the 17-55 was the amount of dust that gathered inside the lens. I had it cleand out twice.





I do wish Canon would make the 17-55 2.8 IS with that quality for a full frame however. It is the one lens I still miss occasionally because I was so used to it. It was my walkaround for quite a while before switching to FF (that turned my 24-105 into my walkaround).

[greggf]

to , Madison and the original poster....that is also why i recommended the Canon 17-40L...it is a great lens, has top notch build quality, superior optics, although you lose a stop. But I don't think that matters to much on a walk-around(which the 17-40 would be on a crop), as it compares to my 28-70L, whick typically i don't use at 2.8, unless absolutely a must, or I want just a little more bokeh. You can find the 17-40 for just around$500, used on ebay or Craigslist.

[ShutterbugJohan]

Apparently, according to Chuck Westfall, Canon will not call any EF-S lens a "L" lens because it does not fit on full frame or 1.3x crop cameras. But for all intents and purposes, the 17-55mm f/2.8 EF-S is a "L" lens in terms of optical quality.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Really? Why did they make an exception for the Powershot Pro1's lens? I've never heard of anyone using it on a full frame, and it was an "L". BTW, I'd love to see a Powershot Pro2.