Which lens to buy.....

[Stan_Lite]

Now that I'm kinda getting into this photography malarkey, I'm willing to spend a few quid on lenses.

Camera is a Canon EOS 40D.

At the moment, I have the 18-55mm kit lens (non IS) and a Sigma 55-200mm.

I'm looking to upgrade to some better lenses and one that I'm fairly set on is the CANON EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. This looks to me like a very good, all-purpose lens which will give decent results in many applications. I'm pretty much certainly going to buy this lens - unless someone gives me a damn good reason not to.

I'm in a bit of a quandary about a longer lens though. I found an ebay seller who has the above lens for £289.95 (Warehouse Express price is £413.89). They also have the lens I'd pretty much decided on which is the CANON EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. Most of the reviews I have read about this lens say it is an excellent lens and very good value for money. The seller has it at £355 (Warehouse Express price is £424.99).

Unfortunately, while I was looking at the stuff this seller stocks, I noticed they also had the CANON EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM for £775 (Warehouse Express price is £964.99).

If I buy the 70-300, I can afford a decent tripod and a 430EX flash unit. If I buy the L glass, I can't.

From what I've read, the 70-200mm F4L is as excellent as you would expect from L glass but the 70-300mm is almost as good, using a UD lens element as used in the L range.

My quandary is, from what I've read, the image quality on the 70-300mm isn't far off that of the 70-200mm. The only differences I can see are the superior build quality of the L glass and the fact that it's good at F4 all the way through the range. The question is, is this worth £420 more AND 100mm less at the top end?

Personally, I'm inclined to think not and, as much as I would like to own a piece of L glass, I'm not sure, in this instance, the extra cost is worth it :confused:

I would really appreciate some input from anyone who has experience of these lenses.

I have a couple of weeks to make up my mind. I get off the rig 2 weeks on Wednesday and get home on the Thursday. I have two days at home before I go on holiday so I want to organise delivery for the Friday so I have them for my holiday.

[divine]

For what I was use my camera for, I would get infinitely more value from the flash and tripod than a higher quality telephoto.

[Stan_Lite]

For what I was use my camera for, I would get infinitely more value from the flash and tripod than a higher quality telephoto.

That's pretty much my thinking. I don't think the marginally better image quality is worth a decent flash, a good CF tripod and an extra 100mm - especially at my level at the moment. Perhaps if my technique improves enough in the future, I might see the benefit of the higher quality lens but, at the moment, I don't think it's worth it.

[Stan_Lite]

Well, I'm part way there. Spotted an EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM on TP including Canon hood and Hoya UV filter for the same price of a new one off ebay. Need to keep my eyes peeled for a 70-300mm now.

[Mondo]

Well, I'm part way there. Spotted an EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM on TP including Canon hood and Hoya UV filter for the same price of a new one off ebay. Need to keep my eyes peeled for a 70-300mm now.

Did you get it?

Coz if not, i would pick up a Tamron 17-50 instead, or the newer version with IS. It's a better lens optically and its also faster.

[Stan_Lite]

Did you get it?

Coz if not, i would pick up a Tamron 17-50 instead, or the newer version with IS. It's a better lens optically and its also faster.

I've already arranged it.

I wanted the 17-85mm so I had all ranges covered. I thought about the Tamron 17-50 but if I got it, I'd be missing 20mm between 50 and 70 - not sure if that would have been a big problem in the long run. Also the IS (or VC) version of the Tamron is about £100 dearer than the Canon.
I wanted IS because I'm too lazy to carry a tripod around all the time :o

[Mark]

I know what you mean about the 'hole'. I've got a similar problem with a hole at 55-70.

I'd go for the 70-300 IS USM myself, as it looks like you've decided. Yes, the L build quality will be better, and the optics will be a little better. Is all that worth double the price? Unless you're going to be clattering the lens around then probably not.

I should however point out that I'm biased. I picked up a 70-300 IS USM from TP several months ago and despite not getting as much use as I'd planned, I'm very happy with it. :)

[lostkat]

Mel has the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and I used it in Cyprus. A very respectable lens, which I wouldn't mind myself actually. OK, so it's not L glass, but it's still decent quality.

[Toby]

Quite interested in its replacement, the 15-85mm which was launched alongside the 7D, but the pre-order pricing I'm seeing is around the £700 mark! Surely it has to come down significantly from there as, at that price point, the 17-55 f/2.8 is a far superior choice IMO.

[Stan_Lite]

Should have updated this.

As mentioned above, I've bought the 17-85mm from a guy on TP. I've also ordered the 70-300mm from Kerso. Since I saved myself a few bob, I treated myself to a nifty fifty from another guy on TP.

Can't wait to get home and have a play :D

Edit: At £700, the 15-85mm would need to be pretty special, since the 17-85mm can be had for about £300 brand new.

[Mondo]

For £700....it better be, the 24-70L is only £180 more (and its 2.8 through out).

[Mark]

It's a new lens, so it'll command a premium price. Happens with bodies too. Jessops (yeah, I know, sue me :p) were demanding around £950 for a 500D the week of launch. Now they want £600, which isn't much more than I paid for my 450D.

[Toby]

For £700....it better be, the 24-70L is only £180 more (and its 2.8 through out).

Well the latest rumours I'm reading are that it's supposed to be to the 24-105L what the 17-55 is to the 24-70 and the 10-22 is to the 16-35, i.e. an EF-S lens which works out at around the same focal length as the L would on a FF sensor.

No doubt the 10-22 and 17-55 are pretty special lenses but I'd still baulk at spending that much on a non-L, EF-S lens which doesn't have a particularly wide fixed aperture. Surely, at this price point you'd go with either the 24-70 or, if you couldn't afford it, the 17-55. I'd rather lose 30mm off the long end in exchange for constant f/2.8 and it'd be cheaper to boot!

[Tysonator]

I have the 70-300 IS USM lens and it is a decent lens. Though it is not the same build quality as the Canon L range. It is a really good alternative to an L lens. Of course I would love to have an L lens which will look cool on my camera ! ! !