Repair my Lens or buy a new one?

I have a 40D with 17-85 USM lens. The lens is playing up now with hunting and not being able to focus.

The question, should I repair it or purchase a Sigma 17-70 2.8/4 DC?

What is the view/opinion here please?

Thank you in advance.

Regards.

Tail wind wrote:

I have a 40D with 17-85 USM lens. The lens is playing up now with hunting and not being able to focus.

The question, should I repair it or purchase a Sigma 17-70 2.8/4 DC?

What is the view/opinion here please?

Thank you in advance.

Regards.

do you have another lens to test? It could also be the body.

Possible culprit: the AF sensor in the bottom of the mirror box, dust in it. Try blowing with a rocket blower.

Tail wind wrote:

photonius wrote:

Tail wind wrote:

I have a 40D with 17-85 USM lens. The lens is playing up now with hunting and not being able to focus.

The question, should I repair it or purchase a Sigma 17-70 2.8/4 DC?

What is the view/opinion here please?

Thank you in advance.

Regards.

do you have another lens to test? It could also be the body.

Possible culprit: the AF sensor in the bottom of the mirror box, dust in it. Try blowing with a rocket blower.

I have tried the lens in my 1000d body and experienced the same problem. The 18-55 lens came with the 1000d works fine on the 40D.

ok, then it's the lens. may not be worth the money to repair (maybe 200$).

seems a common problem, if you google "canon 17-85 hunting"

Tail wind wrote:

I have a 40D with 17-85 USM lens. The lens is playing up now with hunting and not being able to focus.

I have this lens. One of the failure points that is well documented is the AF ribbon breaking. My guess here.

The question, should I repair it or purchase a Sigma 17-70 2.8/4 DC?

At $500, the Sigma 17-70 is a bargain. It will eat the 17-85 for breakfast and poop out its back-cap. Great optics, size and macro capabilities (such as they are) to boot.

At $580 (price at adorama/B&H) the 17-50 is mind-numbingly good with fixed aperture but without the range of the former. Figure possibly half that (tops) for a repair - but you won't know until you send it in.

This is the part in the movie where the person faced with the terminally ill loved one:

a) works 2 shifts and sells the engagement ring their grandmother gave them to hire a gifted surgeon to perform a miracle

or

b) takes a pillow and quietly smothers them putting them out of their misery and goes off to live happily ever after with a gorgeous Italian model

What is the view/opinion here please?

Was that an opinion or editorial?

Not sure if it was really a view.

Thank you in advance.

You're welcome in retrospect.

Regards.

I have this lens with this problem.. I used it manual focus for 5 years before getting a 24-105 L .. does seem to be a common issue unfortunately.

Tail wind wrote:

I live in the UK so the prices I pay are slightly higher.

Now, the question is

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens at £550 on a deal (approx US$ 885)

or

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC OS for £350 (US$ 562.73)

Does the Canon L represents a better proposition?

Thanks.

you are comparing apples and oranges. What focal length do you need, that should determine your need.

If I can interject myself again (and I will) I do own the 24-105.

I have had the chance to test it on my 6D as well as my 60D, to which I compared the Sigma 17-50 both in regular photos and charts.

The Canon really can't hold a candle to the Sigma. In sharpness or in speed.

Assuming the 17-70 is close to the 17-50 (and I have every reason to believe they are very close indeed) as well as being made for APS-C (another advantage) then the Sigma is the obvious choice optically.

However, it's not that easy as you know.

The resale value of the Canon will be higher. The handling of the canon and overall feel are better (Silky would be an adjective I'd use), but the overall build quality is actually quite close. Weather sealing on the Canon also. And of course, if you ever go FF, you will have a serviceable lens moving forward.

The Sigma is a more modern design, and I'd also wager the OS is better than the Canon possibly by one stop. Great warranty too. It's faster on the wide end - and you will notice f2.8.

This is mostly conjecture on my part as I've not handled the lens nor even seen reviews on this lens it's so new - but based on the other recent Sigma additions. It could be that all of a sudden out of all the fantastic new lenses Sigma has developed that this one is a turkey. But, I kind of doubt it.

So, that might not have answered your question - but possibly given you more to consider?

I don't know what the prices are going for in the UK right now - here there are current rebates for the Sigmas. Canon is giving away a printer if you get a lens. The 24-105 sells individually for $1100 US, but I would knock off $300 at least because they're being sold as kit lenses - something you might look into over there as an option? Folks buy the kits and sell the white-box to lower the price of their bodies.

Good luck with your decision.