anyone using 24-85 with 350xt?

I'm considering buying a 350 and am dithering over which lens to pair it with. I don't fancy the kit lens and I've heard positives and negatives about the 17-40, the 17-85 IS and the various third party alternatives. But I've not heard of anyone using the 24-85.

It would give 38-135. I'd miss wideangle, but it's small and light, has USM, and is reasonably cheap.

Or, I could just stick with the kit lens and wait till PMA 2006 to see if Canon produce the ideal, obvious, nikon-rivalling 18-70. or better yet, 17-70. with USM of course. will it happen? doubt it. would cannibalize sales of the 17-85 too much. dilemma.

Although I am not using the 24-85 with the 350, I have that lens, and can heartily recommend it. As far as missing the wide angle, you might find that to be the case more than you expect.

On the other hand, aside from the cheap construction, the kit lens (if you get a good copy) is capable of producing excellent images. I don't expect to see Canon introduce a new lens with a range close to the 17-85 IS.

--

• Woody -

Eqiupment: Lots. (partial list in profile)

Quote: 'The only thing some people will believe is their own eyes. But in the realm of the quality of a printed image, is there really anything else that can be believed? '

I have both the 24-85mm and the 17-85mm IS. Optically, they are probably about equal for the "normal advanced amateur". For me, the 17mm wide capabilities plus the IS is such an big advantage that I almost never use the 24-85mm unless I am trying to stay really small and lightweight. In my opinion, the 17-85mm IS is well worth the added cost(and slight added weight), although the 24-85mm, with nice color and contrast characteristics, would get you started very nicely.
--
Gerry S
http://www.pbase.com/sietsge

I think it's a great walk-around lens. It's a great size, well made, and has instanaeous focus speed. If you look at the charts on Canon USA, this lens has a very good MTF in some respects, especially on a APS camera. I will use this lens a lot when I only want to take one lens along, unless I know that I am going to be in low-light, in which case I always opt for the 50mm 1.4.

I think the photozone.de web recent review and test confirms what many of us who have this lens already knew - it is very good and in some ways better and a lot cheaper than the 17-85 if you can live without the wider angle

I bought the 24-85 with my 20D as I couldn't afford the 17-85 IS. I have never regretted my decision; it's a VERY good lens with super-fast focussing, even in low light, and it never ceases to amaze me just how good the images from this lens are.

Rarely do I need to do much in the way of post processing, the colour and contrast are excellent.

Gayle

--

'We don't make a photograph with just a camera. We bring to the act of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen, the music we have heard and the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams



http://www.shot2shot.com
http://www.pbase.com/gayleknowles/

--
Bharath

If you are coming from a fixed-lens camera, 38mm equivalent at 24mm may not be too bad, because that's a fairly common "wide" end on digicams. I moved to dSLR from a Sony F717, which has 38mm equivalent at the widest. The difference between 24mm and 28mm on a 1.6x crop body is pretty significant...

I own the 24-85 and think it's pretty good, but I always felt that it was not razor sharp. But what really was the problem for me was the slowness of it (max aperture of 3.5-4.5).

I tried out the Tamron 28-75 and have never looked back. Yes, the 24-28 does make quite a difference on the wide end, but the advantage of having 2.8 is huge for me, and I find it to be considerably sharper as well. The 24-85 will go on eBay as soon as I can get around to it.

jojo