Which lens to buy.....

Stan_Lite · 22-09-2009, 12:37

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

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 · 22-09-2009, 14:10

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 · 22-09-2009, 14:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 23-09-2009, 13:46

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 · 23-09-2009, 13:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigstan

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 · 23-09-2009, 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mondo

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

Mark · 26-09-2009, 12:29

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 · 26-09-2009, 19:00

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 · 30-09-2009, 11:36

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 · 30-09-2009, 11:54

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

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

22-09-2009, 12:37	#1
Stan_Lite Stan, Stan the FLASHER MAN! Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: In bed with your sister Posts: 5,483	Which lens to buy..... 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 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. __________________ Just because I have a short attention span doesn't mean I... Last edited by Stan_Lite; 22-09-2009 at 14:42.

22-09-2009, 14:10	#2
divine Moonshine Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Southampton Posts: 3,201	For what I was use my camera for, I would get infinitely more value from the flash and tripod than a higher quality telephoto. __________________

23-09-2009, 13:46	#4
Stan_Lite Stan, Stan the FLASHER MAN! Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: In bed with your sister Posts: 5,483	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. __________________ Just because I have a short attention span doesn't mean I...

26-09-2009, 12:29	#7
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	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. Last edited by Mark; 26-09-2009 at 22:21.

26-09-2009, 19:00	#8
lostkat Good Cat Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 5,550	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. __________________ Oooooh Cecil, what have you done?

30-09-2009, 11:36	#9
Toby Absinthe Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,023	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. __________________

30-09-2009, 11:54	#10
Stan_Lite Stan, Stan the FLASHER MAN! Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: In bed with your sister Posts: 5,483	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 Edit: At £700, the 15-85mm would need to be pretty special, since the 17-85mm can be had for about £300 brand new. __________________ Just because I have a short attention span doesn't mean I... Last edited by Stan_Lite; 30-09-2009 at 11:58.