Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
work = money = camera accessories
haha! got job, and money, so looking more seriously at getting camera lens. (this means that I'm looking with intent to buy, not just intent to dream).

I'm looking for a telephoto lens, preferably zoom lens (just for convienience, and money [yes! still need to save money]),

I intend to get the EF-s 17-85 f/4.0-5.6 USM IS.
This will replace the kit lens (EF-s 18-55 f/3.5-5.6), as mainly be used as my walk-around lens. I see that it covers the range of the kit lens, just a little wider (can anyone tell the 1mm difference? you look at pictures, not camera lens specs), and a little bit more on the telephoto side.
I like the kit lens because of it's ability to shoot wide angle, and also, without changing lens, able to zoom in a little bit if required. Also, the EF-s 17-85 has USM and IS, which means faster focusing (many people also like the fact that it's silent... which doesn't mean much to me, unless I'm shooting wildlife, or secretly shooting people....), and the IS also seems like a useful feature. (Walk around lens = walk around all day, also when it gets dark).

Are there any other suggestions for a kit-lens replacement? Looking for an upgrade, not a downgrade, so something which can produce sharper images wide open than the kit lens wide open. and the Image stabiliser and USM seem nice too.
A few that seem okay also are the Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 (which seems a lot cheaper, but without the IS) and as my friends suggest, the Canon 28-135 with IS and USM.

What do you all think about this? How do these lenses compare.
I understand that buying an EF-s lens means that if I ever get another camera body which does not cake EF-s lenses, it's no use to me, unless I modify or sell, but I do not plan to get a new camera body soon.

Also, for more telephoto images, I'm interested in the Canon EF 70-200 f/4L.
Other options include 70-200 f/2.8L or 70-200 f/2.8L IS or the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.
I want the Canon EF 70-200 f/4L, because it's cheaper (yes, I said I had money coming, but not saying how much), and I don't know if I NEED the extra stop of light.
and on top of that, IS. Thinking about what I usually shoot, it's either indoors or outdoors (where else can you shoot? apart from underwater), using telephoto, I usually shoot people or birds. Just thinking if I'll need f/2.8 compared to f/4 and if IS also... and I read on reviews that the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is just as good, and a lot cheaper too. Any suggestions? Please stay on-topic Smile
I'd say that now that you're a more experienced photographer, do make sure you "invest" in some quality glass.

I was going to say that the 17-85 f/4-5.6 sounds a bit slow, but I guess if you have IS, then it's not that bad.

I've had a 28-105 f/3.5-4.5, and that's such a sweet lens for its price... that is, if you can find one. They stopped making them years ago.

Regarding the EF-s topic... that's quite interesting isn't it? My understanding is that they're suited for the smaller sensor that all Canon digitals currently use... but what if Canon come out with a full frame sensor in the future? Rolleyes

What does everyone think?
The 17-85 should be very comparable to the 28-135. (And no surprise, given Canon's D-Rebel and 10D 1.6x crop factor, the 17-85 gives you an effective 27-136mm range! This was clearly intended as a general purpose consumer-level walk-around lens.) So the question is: which range will be more useful to you?

But it is incorrect to think that IS offsets the problem of "slow" lenses. An f/2.8 lens allows you to achieve faster shutter speeds for the same exposure than a slower lens - two full stops faster than an f/5.6 lens. Thus, smaller f/stop makes a "faster" lens. With IS though, it's quite the opposite - it allows you to shoot at SLOWER shutter speeds without a tripod ... it reduces the effect of camera shake, but does not give you a faster shutter speed. This is important, because your SUBJECT might be moving and require a faster shutter - IS does not necessarily make this possible.

I had the 28-135 IS lens, and really liked it for what it was. But it was not fast enough or long enough for my purposes, nor was it consistenly sharp across the focal range. And I don't believe that any consumer-grade zooms will be especially sharp wide open. (The 28-135 was a real gem in the 50-100mm range at f/8, especially on a tripod in a studio setting.)

My opinion with Canon lenses is that "upgrade" generally means "L." Not always: the 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens for the price, though I prefer the 50 f/1.4 for a number of reasons. The 70-200 f/4L is super but not fast - I usually bump up my ISO to 200 or 400 when using this lens. The 70-200 f/2.8L IS is out of my price range, but that would be my #1 choice if I won the lottery.

I don't have a wide lens, but would consider the 17-40 f/4L if I didn't need the speed. Haven't decided yet. More likely I will get the 35mm f/2 prime (or the 35mm f/1.4L as the lottery winner's choice. Actually, the 16-35mm f/2.8L would be my lottery choice. Smile )

I had a bad experience with a Sigma "EX" lens (their so-called best) and won't buy their products again, though many people claim the 70-200 f/2.8 is a winner. For shorter zoom lenses I'd consider Tamron's Di series (17-35 XR Di and 28-75 XR Di) instead of Sigma.
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!
ooo! Thank you for the informative replies!
As for the useful range for me, I usually find that on my 18-55, for wide shots, I use 18, and for tele shots, I use 55, and usually wish for more. I think that I use the wide and tele ends more than I use 'in between'. Maybe I should go prime? But then as a walk-around lens, I don't really want to keep changing lenses.

Quote:This is important, because your SUBJECT might be moving and require a faster shutter - IS does not necessarily make this possible.
So, it's not possible to shoot using a fast shutter speed and use IS at the same time?
I guess that if I'm using a fast shutter speed, camera shake will not be as evident as compared to if I used a slow shutter speed, and if I'm using the slow shutter speed, with IS, and the subject moves, they will still blur, so I would have to use a faster shutter speed anyway, and with the faster shutter speed, won't see as much camera shake evident, so won't need IS when shooting with faster shutter speeds.
But the part I'm unsure about, is when you said that "IS does not necessarily make this possible", does that mean that I can not use a faster shutter speed when I'm using IS?

I'm starting to consider jumping to the 70-200 f/2.8L IS rather than getting a 70-200 f/4L. Getting the 70-200 f/2.8L will just mean that I skip the 70-200 f/4L, since I'll end up getting the 70-200 f/2.8L if I get the 70-200 f/4L, and that means that I'll be spending more money than necessary! So I'll just hold off buying for a little longer, and work some more to fund this purchase Tongue

At first, I wanted the 24-70 L lens, but the IS, cheaper price and larger range of the 17-85 is what's attractive. Surely the 24-70 should be sharper, especially wide open as compared to the 17-85.
Then after typing this, I start to think.... why walk around taking pictures that aren't sharp, but I convince myself that the 17-85 is 'good enough'. I'm just hoping that I won't convince myself that I need the 24-70 after I get the 17-85.

I think I better be safe and stick to the Canon lens, rather than the Sigma. Pay a bit more, and get something more reliable.

Then also, thinking to get it locally, at the shops here, but it's so much more expensive than if buying over the internet!! then again, if I pay a bit more (not really a bit, but a lot!), is it worth paying the extra money to get it locally? apart from supporting local businesses (who are also after my money). What do you think?
Another issue! The weight! I see that the 70-200 f/2.8L is more than twice the weight of the f/4L!!!!!!!!!!!
So if I use that, it's going to pain me... ahhh!
no experience with IS, but i suppose it's the same sort of thing as the anti-shake on my A2.

you can use IS with fast shutter speeds. i think what mich means is simply that IS is not a substitute for a fast lens. both represent very different solutions to shooting in low light. it may be better to think of the lenses in terms of f/2.8 and f/4 and what you need, and definitely not counting on the IS to make up the difference.
I think I'll go for the f/4L then.
Will go and try friend's f/2.8L then find a friend who has a f/4L I can try,
then I'll know which I'd prefer Big Grin
Or why not find a shop and have a play with it there?
pai Wrote:you can use IS with fast shutter speeds. i think what mich means is simply that IS is not a substitute for a fast lens. both represent very different solutions to shooting in low light.

Exactly. And yes, it's similar to AS on the A2, though they smartly built it into the camera whereas Canon keeps it in the lens - at higher cost to the customer. :x
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!
I'm still trying to convince myself that $1500 isn't too much to spend on a lense... I really want the 100-400 4-5.6L IS.....

"Sure honey, I'm just gonna spend 2 months rent on a camera lense... Yes honey, the same camera I spent 3 months rent on!"
[Image: ef1200_56lu_586x225.jpg]

1200mm, f/5.6L


Better buy a bigger tripod ... or in this case, a station wagon. Smile
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!
Haha... it's quite funny imagining it hanging off a camera... or rather the other way round - a camera hanging off it! Big Grin
man, just thinking of all the windows I'd be able to look in with that makes me drool even more than ruf Smile
Camera: Nikon D70
Level: Eager Amateur
Area of speciality: Sceneries
Area of Learning: Portraiture
Well if you were a Nikon guy (which you are not) - the obvious choice would be the 80-200 F2.8 ED zoom - the best lens in its class...

(and yes the Canon 100-400IS is a great lens - but oo slow for film - digital OK)

but whatever....

I also have a A2 - so I KNOW that IS/AS is a great feature.
*making notes on 80-200* Smile

I'm thinking my 70-300 isn't quite what I was after... I am thinking about this lens you've put here Toad.. and maybe getting a fixed 400 lens for when I wanna go close .. I wanna do sports shooting next year for some friends... and am thinking about what gear I'd need.
Camera: Nikon D70
Level: Eager Amateur
Area of speciality: Sceneries
Area of Learning: Portraiture
The 70-300 is a GREAT zoom range - and is a nice trim little package. I gave it serious thought. It is to slow for film though, and not in the same class sharpness wise above 200mm - as the 80-200. This is not to take anything away from the 70-300 - still a very nice lens - you need to balance the cost aganst what you think you need. The 80-200 is also a BIG lens vs the 70-300. That extra stop of speed and optical precision comes at a significant price in size/weight.
I'd prefer to try a friend's one than the shops one, then I can use it for longer, like, take many more pictures, actually test it in the way I'd use it, not just taking photographs of the assistant and the boss, and won't feel pressured Tongue
but will probably end up going to the shop to try both, but not enough time. I start work before the shop opens and finish after it closes Sad But Saturday is half day of work, so maybe I'll drop by.
Come to Canada - you can try my 80-200

Big Grin
it's a deal. I will end up in canada.. and you will have to cough up the 80-200 for trial Smile

actually, I'm lining up a Canada trip in the May-June range of 2006 (yes, it's years away.. but money doesn't come cheap). Besides, I have to wait for them to start playing hockey again before I jump on the steel bird.
Camera: Nikon D70
Level: Eager Amateur
Area of speciality: Sceneries
Area of Learning: Portraiture
Interesting comments on the 80-200 Nikon.

Canon have an older lens, an 80-200 f/2.8L (non-IS), and it is considered by some to be one of the sharpest - if not THE sharpest - zoom they've made. It was replaced with the 70-200 series, but you can still fine them on ebay and in used gear shops.
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!
That reminds me, there was the 80-200 f/2.8L on ebay last week! I forgot about it Sad
I'm checking now to see if the auction is still on. Smile
It's black Tongue

I think I missed it Sad
Good luck finding it. You might also want to try the buy & sell forum at
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!
I've decided to get my lens online, from an online Australian grey shop... save about AUD$300 per lens!!!!
Most likely getting the 70-200 f/4L instead of the f/2.8L, but still sort of deciding
Got my 17-85 today! Big Grin~~~~~
had to run there after work, and they waited for me SmileSmileSmileSmile~~
Ooooh oooh post piccies please! Big Grin

Initial impressions?

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  what is the best camera for product photography under 500? josephoffshore 1 27 Sep 24, 2020, 14:05
Last Post: EnglishBob
  BEST DSLR AND MIRRORLESS CAMERA 2020 Jeffbridge 1 202 Sep 24, 2020, 04:18
Last Post: josephoffshore
  What Camera?? (Thread Two) Barbara G. 76 64,076 Sep 3, 2020, 04:47
Last Post: raselsordar

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

work = money = camera accessories00