17/18 to 100/200 lens ?

[GregMueller]

I am looking for a lens to replace my 17-85 lens, hoping for a little more top end. I have not been able to find one in this range that is not bad mouthed and I am wondering if there actually is one. The 17-85 that I bought when I got my 20D works very well for me. It works as well as I can use it and so it's a little odd for me to hear it too described as not being a "good" lens.

Is there one in this range that does not cost thousands of dollars that everyone can agree on as being a good lens?

Yes I know about multiple prime lenses being "better". That's nice if a person can afford it, I can't.

 

[Klaus dk]

I wonder if you ask because you have not read/heard of the Canon EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-6.6 IS USM?

It gets very good reviews. If you think the 17-85 is good, you will be thrilled by the quality of the 15-85. B&H lists it at USD 694, so it is not cheap, but compared to the competition it's not really expensive either.

I own one, it is my favourite walk-around lens and I recommend it for that purpose. If you only own one lens for your Canon APS-C camera, this should be it!

The only minus is that it is a tad dark, and IS is only relevant if your subjects does not move.

I realise now, you are asking for more reach. To me, the extra width is very useful, and the difference from 85 to 100 mm is not that big. If you want longer reach, I think you are right that the reviews of the longer range zooms are a bit disheartening. I have put the new Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 OS on my wish list, it is USD 1099 and it would add range without compromising IQ. There are also several 70-200 mm zooms which would supplement your existing lens well.

I hope you find the right lens for your purpose.

 

[GregMueller]

Klaus dk wrote:

I wonder if you ask because you have not read/heard of the Canon EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-6.6 IS USM?

It gets very good reviews. The extra width is very useful. If you think the 17-85 is good, you will be thrilled by the quality of the 15-85. B&H lists it at USD 694, so it is not cheap, but compared to the competition it's not really expensive either.

I own one, it is my favourite walk-around lens and I recommend it for that purpose. If you only own one lens for your Canon APS-C camera, this should be it!

The only minus is that it is a tad dark, and IS is only relevant if your subjects does not move.

I hope you find the right lens for your purpose, this could be it.

 

[Rakumi]

You want longer focal range or IQ? You do not get both you know.

 

[Klaus dk]

I was editing my answer while you answered, wires got crossed, so let me repeat the essence of my edit.

If you think 85 mm is too short, I would recommend that you buy a long zoom to supplement the one you already have, rather than go for one lens to do it all. Sigma just released a 50-150 f/2.8 OS lens at USD 1099 which has few, but positive reviews. Canon's 70-200 L zooms are all acclaimed as being tack sharp, and if you can live with f/4 and no IS, you get a very sharp lens for a reasonable amount of money. Canon's 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS is a consumer class lens, but a lot of lens for your money at USD 179.

I own the Canon 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, and I still am puzzeled if it is me or the lens that is a bit inconsistent. I think it is me, because sometimes I get really sharp results from it.

 

[GregMueller]

With my 17-85 I have a 70-300 which provided a nice overlap. Now I want to trade out the 70-300 for a 100-400L. So I would like to have at least close to an overlap. I realize that the 100-400 is actually going to be a 160-640 so I was thinking the 18-135 would leave not too great a gap.

 

[Klaus dk]

GregMueller wrote:

With my 17-85 I have a 70-300 which provided a nice overlap. Now I want to trade out the 70-300 for a 100-400L. So I would like to have at least close to an overlap. I realize that the 100-400 is actually going to be a 160-640 so I was thinking the 18-135 would leave not too great a gap.

... but by the same reckoning the 17-85 is 27-136, so the gap is only from 85 to 100 (or 136 to 160 if you prefer). That is not much, and certainly not more than you can crop.

I do not own the old 18-135, and I do not think I ever will:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/462-canon_18135_3556is

I realise there's a new kid on the block: Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, but I have not yet seen any reviews.

 

[Keithgg]

Greg

If you are happy with the 17-85 then I suggest that you add (not replace with) another lens.

My vote goes to the 70-200 f4L. I wouldn't part with mine.

Cheers

Keith