2 lenses to cover large focal length

Posted this on 440D forum but on second thoughts may be better in here so sorry for the repeat post. Asked a similar qustion a few days ago and have narrowed it down slightly (I think!)........

I have the 400D with the kit lens. I also have the 50mm f/1.8.

I am looking to upgrade from the kit lens with possibly two lenses.

I want to cover both wide and telephoto apects. Budget would be £800 in total.

I have done some research on vsrious websites and have settled on.

17-85 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

and

70-300 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

I would like to know if these would compliment each other well. I have the 50mm f1.8 for low light situations. I don't have a specific subject - I would simply like to have more flexibilty. Speed of lens is not so much of an issue.

I have looked at the 17-55 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM but for the price I think I would find it a little restriting at the zoom end. Is there a lens that would go well with this and still be within my budget ( or a little bit more)?

TI have a feeling the 55-250 may get a mentiion here.

Which combination would be better?

I've also looked at the 28-135 althoug I'm a little worried about the wide end of things with this.

Any suggestions would be most welcome

And again, 17-55 should read 17-55 f/2.8 (not 4.5-5.6 obviously)

Sigma 10-20 (even better: Canon 10-22) and Sigma 18-200 OS
Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 and Canon 70-200 L IS USM F4

And my favorite: Sigma 18-200 and 200-500 2.8 (just kidding!)

Please just dont buy 28-135...you'll miss A LOT wide angle!

If money wouldnt be a problem i would get:
17-55 IS USM 2.8 and 70-200 L F4 IS USM or even 100-400 L IS USM
you wont miss that 55-70 or 55-100 gap that much...

--
Pedro Moreira

http://www.pedroxmoreira.com

That does cover a nice range for you. I would stay away from the 28-135, great lens but not wide enough.

Personally I am not a fan of the 17-85 I prefer the sigma 17-70 myself so take a look at that. It is very sharp.

--
Ben
http://www.b3nbrooks.com/blog/

Thank you for your feedback.

Another question in relation to this - of I were to get the 17-85 and later upgrade to the 17-55, would I get much use out of the 17-85? Would I miss the 55-85 if I also had the 70-300?

If you are thinking of upgrading later to the 17-55 f/2.8, why not buy it now and complement it with 55-250mm? Yes it is a 300$ difference... but it is a bigger difference in IQ and speed.

70-300 is not so great compared to 55-250. If you want IQ on tele choose 70-200L F/4 IS. IMHO the almost 300$ difference between the 55-250 and 70-300 is not justified. And if you plan to upgrade later to 70-200L, you will still keep the 55-250 for weight, when you'll want to travel light.

Why I'm writing this? Because this is my plan for now: 17-55 + 55-250 and 70-200 in the future.

--
A happy Canon user...
http://www.redmin.net

just to clarify whether I've picked you up correctly...

Are you saying that the 55-250 is better than the 70-300

Or that the 70-300 is better, but not much better to justify the extra cost?

scoot4nat said:

Or that the 70-300 is better, but not much better to justify the
extra cost?

Click to expand...

That is my corect answer

--
A happy Canon user...
http://www.redmin.net

I bought the 55-250 with the XSi and 15-55 kit lens. I then added the 60 2.8 macro. My next upgrade will be the 17-55 2.8. I doubt that I will ever upgrade the 55-250. If I become more interested in wildlife photography then I know I will need a serious jump up to the 400 or 500 mm range. I am also thinking about a 10-20 lens. There is no way around it; this hobby sucks up money and 2 lens just are not enough.

I've checked on Amazon and the 70-300 is £358 whereas the 55-250 is £189

I suppose I've got a bit more thinking to do!

Any other suggestions for lenses covering this range for the same sort of prices. Preferably Canons

Finally had an ideal selection, Canon 10-22 and 24-105L. Also have a Sigma 18-200 and a Sigma f/1.4 , Canon 18-55 IS kit lens also.

17-85 IS and 70-300 IS are my two most used lenses.

The 17-85 IS gets a lot more flak than it deserves. I personally think it's a great walk around/ everyday lens. Yes, it is a little slow at times but a photographer that knows their gear will adjust accordingly (if possible).

If you intend to get the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, I would say get that straight off (unless you want both the 17-85 and 17-55).

The 70-300 IS was my safari lens. Great lens for the money IMHO. Again, if you intend to upgrade to one of the 70-200 L's or even the 100-400 L, I'd go for those straight away and by pass the 70-300 unless you need two telephotos for different reasons.

I personally am happy with the 17-85 IS being my main walk around lens and then having the 70-300 IS, Sigma 10-20 and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for the few times when I need extra reach, a wider lens or a faster lens.

I can't rule out upgrading in the future.

The reaon I don't want to go for L series lenses is simply that I don't want to make too big a jump. I am new to photography and feel that L lenses will be "too good for me" if that makes sense. I would rather upgrade in stages. Once I feel comfortable with a cetain lens then I will look to upgrade it.

That's probably the main reason I got the 50mm f1.8 - great reviews fo rthe price and also noted as an excellent lens for learners regarding DOF etc.

So really all I want to do is cover wide and mid range tele ends, without buying the cheapest possible lens, but not wasting money either. Ideally I hope tjhat whatever lens I purchase will assist me in learning.

I have owned the 17-85 for my 40D but I quickly traded it in for the Sigma 17-70 2.8/4.0. I also had the Sigma 18-50 2.8EX. the Sigma 17-70 is a great walkaround lens and is mentioned by other people as well. My second choice would be the Canon 17-55, but like the Sigma 18-50 it is a bit too short.

As a zoomlens the 50-150 2.8EX and the 70-200 EX From Sigma are excellent lenses.

scoot4nat said:

I can't rule out upgrading in the future.

Click to expand...

That's a fair enough call. There are days where I think a 40D + 17-55 f/2.8 + 70-200 f/2.8 would be a sweet purchase. Perhaps if I get a 40D, I can justify getting the better lenses but on my 350D, my current lenses are good enough.

scoot4nat said:

The reason I don't want to go for L series lenses is simply that I
don't want to make too big a jump. I am new to photography and feel
that L lenses will be "too good for me" if that makes sense. I would
rather upgrade in stages. Once I feel comfortable with a certain lens
then I will look to upgrade it.

Click to expand...

That's a fair call, though, quite a lot of people who have upgraded in stages have looked back and thought "why didn't I just purchase the top of the line gear first and save myself some money?". I guess it's something for you to consider.

scoot4nat said:

That's probably the main reason I got the 50mm f1.8 - great reviews
for the price and also noted as an excellent lens for learners
regarding DOF etc.

So really all I want to do is cover wide and mid range tele ends,
without buying the cheapest possible lens, but not wasting money
either. Ideally I hope that whatever lens I purchase will assist me
in learning.

Click to expand...

Being someone who went the way of the 17-85 and 70-300 as an upgrade path from the old kit lens, I'll give you my opinions.

The biggest advantage of going with the 17-85 IS + 70-300 IS as oppose to the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS is the better build quality of the lenses, improved AF (USM makes a huge difference) and that the walk around lens has more reach which makes it quite nice for portrait shots.

I've found myself not needing to change lenses all that often after getting the 17-85 as oppose to when I originally had a 18-55 and 75-300 only. The USM is also great for my shooting style as I take very candid shots and often find that my gear has to keep up with what's happening around me, else I'll miss the shot. But enough about me.

My suggestion is to look at what function you want your lenses to fulfill:

• Get the 17-85 IS unless you intend to shoot in low light and/or need greater DOF control on your walk around lens. The 17-55 f/2.8 IS would be a better lens if you need those two functions satisfied.

• Get the 70-300 IS if you want a versatile telephoto lens for a bit of portrait work, a bit of wildlife and a nice addition to your focal length options (I've used 300mm for landscape shots). Note that this is not the fastest telephoto lens so if you were intending to shoot indoor sports or were more keen on improving your portrait work, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS would be the better buy. Otherwise, the cheaper 70-300 IS should be sufficient (plus the extra reach has been a life saver for me on several occasions.

Hope this helps.

Thank you for your opinions - they are very helpful.

My gut instinct is to go for the 17-85 and the 70-300.

17-85 seems like the ideal walkaround lens and for the price is probably good value. The 70-300 seems like the logial telephoto to compliment this lens.

If I do eventually outgrow either of these then I know what would replace them.

As I have said, I don't think I'm ready to venture into L lenses.

Does anyone have any samples of the 17-85 and 70-300 on the 400D, prefereably with shooting information.

Another way to look at that is to insure your gear isn't part of the limitation factor in attaining the images you want.

If you buy the best you can manage, that pretty much will let you know that any disappointments are due to the user.

I adoped that theory, and it has been very useful for my own development. "No excuses, Bob." And it has cut down on the gear I might have 'wasted' $$$ on.

I did cut corners in the tripod/head area, and I paid twice the amount in order to try to save 1/2 of the expense, in the long run.

Your rationales may vary.
--
...Bob, NYC

Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/btullis

I have a few other lenses, but, when I don't know what I'll need, I use a two-zoom solution of the 17-55 f/2.8 and the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6. I haven't heard anyone else recommend this combo, but it works great for me. It doesn't cover every possible need, but it does cover 27mm to 216mm (equiv) which is a pretty flexible range.

Because the wider lens is also the faster one, I tend to think of it as my "indoor lens". Obviously, I use it outdoors a lot too--it's terrific. The telephoto is two and a half times long as the normal zoom, but still has a nice overlap in range that means I don't have to change lenses as often. And the lenses are about the same size, so they interchange readily using a single extra-lens pocket in the bag.

I could get an improvement in IQ and speed by upgrading my telephoto to a 70-200 f/4, but it is only 50% longer (than the 135), twice as big, twice as heavy, and triple the price. I'd also have to sacrifice the convenient interchangeability and range overlap. These costs are well worth it in specific situations, but most of the time the 28-135 is just great. The 70-300 might be worth considering as it is considerably longer than 135, but I personally didn't care for the cheaper build, slower focus, and lack of FTM.

I own the 17-55 2.8 AND the 18-55 IS. The first surely is a great lens, but bulky. I bought the 18-55 IS for travel use, and I have to say it's great value for money. The loss in IQ is there, but it isn't that significant.

I also owned the 70-200 F4L, but sold it and bought the 55-250. Some step down in IQ, but I use the tele a lot more (IS and lightweight).
If you are on a budget, go for these lenses ...

I finally got the 24-105L lens and it's like night and day regarding sharpness with other lenses. I too bought multiple lenses to satisfy by focal range need and actually wasted money doing it. Why not just save up and buy quality glass, it's worth it! I've learned my lesson. Will save up for another 'L' glass which one I don't know yet.