[Orwella]

I have been given a lovely new 40d for my birthday (thanks wifey). The 17-85 kit lens is not bad, but clearly incapable of keeping up with a decent 10MP sensor. I have already decided to buy a Canon 55-250mm IS, but I'm unsure what is the best low-cost option at the wide end.

Option 1
Keep the 17-85 and buy a Canon f/1.8 50mm Prime. The 17-85 will then be my walkabout with the 50 used for low light and portraits.

Option 2
Sell the 17-85 and buy a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I will loose some "walkabout" flexability but should gain a lot in IQ. The Tamron at 50 is supposedly almost as good as the 50mm Prime so I would not need the 3rd lens (just the 17-50 and 55-250).

Most of my photography will be family stuff - parties, holidays, snaps of the kids etc. I like the IS on the 17-85 but would appreciate the IQ benifits of the 17-50 (especially at the wider end where the Canon is poor). The big question for me is whether 17-50 will have enough range for a travel lens?

Also, will there be a noticeable difference in AF speeds between the two lenses?

Convince me please.

[drb5]

I haven't had the pleasure of the 17-50 on the 40D, but on the A100 it was a great lens.

It's usually compared with the 17-55 Canon lens which i have on the 40D and although on the whole the 17-55 wins, it doesn't win by much.

With that, i'd sell the 17-85 and go 17-50.....you will get used to the zoom range, i promis you.

[allymac123]

Tamron 17-50 F2.8.

There is a massive difference between 50 and 85. Theres a bit but its unlikely to be a problem I think.

[dazza74]

I bought the tamron 17-50 recently and during my research stumbled on this review, it compares the tamron to the canon 17-85 :

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...50_review.html

[jonnypb]

Tamron 17-50 2.8. I have that on my 40D and it's a very nice lens. Good in low light with the constant 2.8 and well built. It will pair up well with the 55-205IS as well as there'll only be a 5mm gap which you won't notice.

The 55-250IS is a very useable walkabout lens as well as it starts at 55mm whereas a lot of the telephoto lenses start at 70mm which isn't really wide enough for a walkabout. It's also very compact compared to the 70-300IS or 70-200.

[Orwella]

Thanks for the replies. It looks like the 17-85 will go on ebay with the proceeds going towards the tamron 17-50.

I had also considered the 70-200m F/4.0 L over the 55-250 but could not really justify the extra cost. The L is also a heavy beast to lug around (plus I hate the cream and black colour scheme - It shouts "I've got L glass and I'm a nob"). They should make a black option.

I will post sample shots once the kit arrives.

[happyhomer]

[QUOTE=Orwella;7263956]The L is also a heavy beast to lug around (plus I hate the cream and black colour scheme - It shouts "I've got L glass and I'm a nob"QUOTE]

Sit back, and wait for the replies I agree with you (not saying that people with big L's are nobs, but that a lot of onlookers will feel that way). It's also a good way of justifying not splashing the cash; I recently bought a 17-40 L, and if the longer zooms came in an all-black option I'd be bankrupt by now

[dazza74]

Would be interesting to see what would sell more if they brought the "L" lenses out in white or black. Thing that concerns me more is being mugged so having such a statement can't be good in today's society, they think nothing of beating somebody up for a mobile phone, camera and lens are rich pickings.

[loz]

Originally Posted by Orwella

Convince me please.

I would say that in 90 out a 100 everyday shots it would be impossible to tell the difference between the 17-50 tamron and the 17-85...

It isn't like the IQ differerence is night and day...
And you loose IS, and 35mm of reach (forcing more lens changes...)

Put your hand on your heart and say just because you have a slightly better lens you are guaranteed to get much better pictures than these http://www.flickr.com/groups/canonlens/pool/

Of course if you pixel peep you may no find improvements in the 17-50 tamron over the 17-85 canon.

But if you pixel peep you will doubt find flaws in the 17-50 too... and hence a quest for the perfect lens is never ending.

I think the 17-85 is more than good enough, and if you want to spend money I would vote on adding additional lenses, not replacing ones you have already for very small improvements in IQ.

Also, remember that the distortion and CA flaws in the 17-85 at the wide end are now easily fixed at the click of a button inow it is supported in DPP.

(but then I would say that as I just bought a 17-85mm for my 450D )

[jonnypb]

Originally Posted by Orwella

"I've got L glass and I'm a nob"). They should make a black option.

hmmm who's going to beat you over the head 1st with their white lens

I must admit if the 70-200 was black then yes i'd have one but i wouldn't say people are nob's who use L glass I'd love the 17-40 L 24-105L and 70-200 L (If it was black )

[py6km]

I've no direct experience with the Tamron lens, but my experience with the 17-85 IS and other lenses has led me to the conclusion that for 9 out of 10 shots there will most definitely be a noticeable real world difference in image quality between the 17-85 and something a little better, which may be stating the obvious.

I sold mine shortly after having it, and after having given it a good test out (as I really wanted to keep it). I wouldn't have got rid of it if I'd thought otherwise (and had initially got this kit becuase I thought the 17-85 was not a 'kit' lens) - well, it's not really a 'kit' lens as such, and is a nice bit of kit, but there are better options (aren't there always ). I certainly don't think you'd be making a mistake with you're proposed course.

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind not buying a lens because you don't like the look of it however. The lenses are light coloured for a reason - so they reflect sun more so that the lens doesn't overheat when used all day outside, as they're designed for, not so you people can see that you can afford an expensive lens. I don't care what colour it is, it's the final image quality that determines my reason to purchase, and with IQ comes cost.

BTW, the 50 1.8 is average imo. The 1.4 is better, but at a price. Depends how much you would consider that you'd use the prime.

[jonnypb]

Originally Posted by loz

It isn't like the IQ differerence is night and day...
And you loose IS, and 35mm of reach (forcing more lens changes...)

Correct that the difference isn't night and day but the Tamron is sharper and when you're presented in the following situtations the Tamron comes into life...

say you're at 50mm in low light and you want to get a pic of someone. Tamron can be at 50mm 2.8 to get a fast shutter speed, The Canon at 50mm would probably be at 4.5 or 5.0 - yes it has IS but that doesn't freeze the subject if it's moving like a child for instance

[loz]

Originally Posted by jonnypb

say you're at 50mm in low light and you want to get a pic of someone. Tamron can be at 50mm 2.8 to get a fast shutter speed, The Canon at 50mm would probably be at 4.5 or 5.0 - yes it has IS but that doesn't freeze the subject if it's moving like a child for instance

But neither does 2.8 let you get steady 1/10s shots without a tripod.

or even 1/2s...

There's pro's and con's both ways...

[h4rri]

Originally Posted by Orwella

plus I hate the cream and black colour scheme - It shouts "I've got L glass and I'm a nob

Really, well I guess I'm a 'nob' then. I honestly bought mine to willy wave with and it had 'nothing' to do with the quality, speed and weather sealing. I mean everything I consider purchasing I have to think about what other people will think of me for buying it [/sarcasm]

If you want the quality and have the money then buy some 'L' glass because of it's virtues and not what people will think of you. If you are that concerned with others opinions then grab a black lens coat and cover it. Failing that buy Nikon, all their Nikkor's are black or stick to the non-black 'L's.

Why not grab the 70-300 DO IS? It's the best of the bunch and a pinch and circa £800.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by allymac123

There is a massive difference between 50 and 85. Theres a bit but its unlikely to be a problem I think.

Do you mean "isn't"?

[springtide]

Originally Posted by Orwella

Option 2
Sell the 17-85 and buy a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I will loose some "walkabout" flexability but should gain a lot in IQ. The Tamron at 50 is supposedly almost as good as the 50mm Prime so I would not need the 3rd lens (just the 17-50 and 55-250).

Just my 2p worth....

I'd still go for a 50mm prime if you are looking for a low light sharp lens.

I do love my Tam 17-50, but at f/2.8 it is a little soft and not a patch on the prime. It's nice and sharp by f/4 but then you've lost some of the creative DOF of the lens.

But if you can live with a bit of softness (sometimes better for portraits!) then the Tam is a great lens.

[tomson]

Originally Posted by h4rri

Really, well I guess I'm a 'nob' then. I honestly bought mine to willy wave [/sarcasm]
.

I use mine to impress the ladies.

[Orwella]

I did not mean offend "L" owners. My personal opinion is that cream and black looks tacky and there is no real reason for it. If I was a pro, I am sure colour would not bother me. However I am not, and I prefer not to stand out by waving a big cream willy on the end of my camera.

[py6km]

Originally Posted by Orwella

I did not mean offend "L" owners. My personal opinion is that cream and black looks tacky and there is no real reason for it. If I was a pro, I am sure colour would not bother me. However I am not, and I prefer not to stand out by waving a big cream willy on the end of my camera.

There is a reason for the colour as I stated earlier - it helps reflect sun to keep heat in the lens down.

[Orwella]

Originally Posted by py6km

There is a reason for the colour as I stated earlier - it helps reflect sun to keep heat in the lens down.

I saw the comment and disnissed it as a Canon marketing gimmick. I guess if colour really made a perceivable differennce all lenses would be built in white. Perhaps they should make the cameras white as well.

They also say red cars are faster than white ones but I have never noticed the difference.

[py6km]

Originally Posted by Orwella

I saw the comment and disnissed it as a Canon marketing gimmick. I guess if colour really made a perceivable differennce all lenses would be built in white. Perhaps they should make the cameras white as well.

They also say red cars are faster than white ones but I have never noticed the difference.

[jonnypb]

Originally Posted by Orwella

They also say red cars are faster than white ones but I have never noticed the difference.

ah but i bet you haven't noticed the speed boost switch that they put in the glove box when you buy a red car

[GaryK26]

I have both the Tamron and a 70-200L F4 amongst my arsenal and 99.9% of the time one or the other is attached to my 40D.

The Tamron is a great lens and the constant 2.8 is a godsend.
I was tempted to get the 17-85 bundled with the 40D (for the IS and the extra mm's), but my research indicated issues with the IQ.

The 70-200l F4 is also a great lens which is fantastic value for money. I picked mine up on ebay for something like £300. Initially I was a little self-conscious about going out in public with a "look at me" cream lens, but that concern fast disappeared when a saw the quality results that it gave me. My only issue is that at 200mm I find myself wanting more - so I bought a 1.4 TC (but I still find myself wanting more )

[senu]

Love this thread
Just my tuppence worth
I dont have the Tamron , but do have the Canon 17-55 IS 2.8, 17-85 50mm 1.8 and 1.4
All I can say is that there is no doubt some lenses simply put others in the shade but often at a cost
I can say hand on heart. Any of the above in the right hands , and on the right Body is capable of good to very good results and some of the best " L" lenses don't guarantee quality
I think we are to quick to dismiss lenses when "lens lust " sets in
FWIW get the Tamrom and the 50mm 1.8 by all means.
The 1.4 is better but not sharper, It is a little strange( but true) to say it has better definition colour, bokeh, build and AF but it isn't really sharper than the 1.8 . The 1.8 is budget but it is VFM ,

One from earlier in the week from 17-85 .. RAW conversion .. no PP
Not awful IMHO!

And Easter Day

[senu]

And another

[loz]

I have only had my 17-85mm a few days, so I haven't had much time to do anything other than some "test" shots. Clearly it is rubbish...

HDR of the lake by our house (Heathlake)

Flowers in the garden

I think F2.8 on the Tamron would probably do a better job of bluring the background on the above 2.

Panorama stitch in British Museum

And another in the Great Court

I created a flickr set of some of the pics I have taken so far with the 17-85mm

[denno75uk]

The problem with the 17-85 is that it seems to be a marmite lens, as someone has said. Fact is, as a noob (did I just say that) trying to decide, there is more generally positive stuff written/said about lenses like the Tamron and Sigma and the Canon is generally more expensive so when it comes down to splashing the cash.....
I don't know if it's to do with getting "a good copy" but there's no doubt that there are people taking some fantastic shots with the Canon (see loz above). It all depends on whether evidence like that is enough to give you the piece of mind needed to spend with confidence.

[loz]

Originally Posted by denno75uk

the Canon is generally more expensive so when it comes down to splashing the cash.....
I don't know if it's to do with getting "a good copy" but there's no doubt that there are people taking some fantastic shots with the Canon (see loz above). It all depends on whether evidence like that is enough to give you the piece of mind needed to spend with confidence.

FYI, I bought mine 2nd hand off ebay. So "didn't splash the cash"

[dave_bass5]

I sold my 24-105L because i was using my Tamron 17-50 more. It seemed sharper and was faster in lowish light.
The only reason i got rid of my Tamron was because i got a Canon 17-55IS f/2.8 because i really did want IS on my most used lens.

I also have the 50mm f/1.4 and i do use it but not a lot. seems to be more as a travel lens for me now.

I also have a White lens and i do feel very self concious getting it out in public. more so if im out with the kids in a park etc but if it was black i would use it a lot more.

[phatspider]

Interesting post chaps - i'm about to buy both the 17-85 and the 50mm 1.8

Is the original poster selling his 17-85? If so - how much?