I am looking at upgrading from the Canon 18-55 kit lens. The consensus seems to be the Canon EFS 17-85 F4-5.6. However it has been criticized for poor low end quality, limited aperture, vignetting, and CA. Today I read a review of the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 lens and it was compared favorably to the Canon. The limitations seem to be the lack of IS/OS and a slightly narrower range. On the positive side it offers Macro capability and F2.8 aperture, and does not seem to suffer the same CA problems. So which one to pick? Is the lack of IS/OS a big issue? I really like the macro capability it offers. Any help will be appreciated--Larry
I have used the Canon 17-85 lens and it I found it a very good lens for the money.
And yes the IS is worth it, I was hand holding shots as slow as 1/15 of a second and getting clear shots. I have a few friends with this lens also, and they are quite happy with it. I have not used the other lens you mentioned however. I have since moved on to the 24-70 2.8 lens and have dearly missed the IS for low shutter speeds.
The Canon EF-S 17-85mm lens was the first lens I owned with IS. I did get a lot of vignetting with this lens and didn't like the limited aperture, but didn't really notice the low end quality and CA. Overall I thought it was a very nice lens for the money. I have since moved on to L lenses for better quality, but I learned from that lens that IS incredibly valuable to have and would always encourage people to spend more money to get an IS lens versus a non-IS lens.
I use a 17-70 near constantly. It is my 'go to' lens. Extremely sharp, nearly zero CA. The macro capabilities are one of my favorite aspects - it can nearly focus on it's own front element. Build quality is much better than a typical Canon consumer lens.
I've had (and have) the opportunity to 'upgrade' to the 17-55, 16-35, 17-40, etc, but I just haven't seen a reason to do so. The range, macro, and IQ combined give me no reasons.
If you're convinced IS is the way to go (and I wouldn't argue with that), the 17-55 is really your best bet on a crop. I'd personally stay far and away of that 17-85, it has more problems than it's worth.
Well since these are conflicting responses I decided to look at my choices again. So what about adding the Canon 17-40mm to the mix. This is an L series lens with a better build and better quality although it does not have IS and is a little more limited range. Darwin Wiggett seems to like it a lot in his article this month. Any suggestions? Thanks--Larry
Discussion
4 repliesAnd yes the IS is worth it, I was hand holding shots as slow as 1/15 of a second and getting clear shots. I have a few friends with this lens also, and they are quite happy with it. I have not used the other lens you mentioned however. I have since moved on to the 24-70 2.8 lens and have dearly missed the IS for low shutter speeds.
I've had (and have) the opportunity to 'upgrade' to the 17-55, 16-35, 17-40, etc, but I just haven't seen a reason to do so. The range, macro, and IQ combined give me no reasons.
If you're convinced IS is the way to go (and I wouldn't argue with that), the 17-55 is really your best bet on a crop. I'd personally stay far and away of that 17-85, it has more problems than it's worth.