Shoul I buy a EF-S 17-85mm IS USM lens?

[ramian]

abit off topic, but juz a point. f2.8 can b sufficient for indoor shots depending on lighting. and even if its not sufficient and u wan to use a flash, a f2.8 with high ISO and flash can give ur flash shot a more natural feel with sufficient ambient lighting ... saves some flash energy too

Please correct me if I'm wrong here... at the wide end, f2.8 is 1/3 of a stop brighter than the f3.5 of the kit lens. At the tele end, it's up to 1 1/3 stops brighter. In most circumstances, the kit lens (with use of flash) should suffice right?

While I haven't even handled a f2.8 zoom yet, in my use of my sigma 30mm/1.4 for indoor/low-light photography, if I find myself using apertures smaller than f/2, I just switch back to my kit lens. As such, I felt that the oft-recommended f/2.8 standard zooms don't provide all that much benefit over the current kit lens.

 

[hehahe]

Is this lens good? Thinking of upgrading from the basic 18-55mm kit lens.

Since you are new to DSLR, why not walk about with your 500D and 18-55 for a period of time before deciding what you really need ? Do you really need an "upgrade" ?

I remember watching a documentary about a Singaporean photographer who went around shooting with a compact film camera and he won multiple awards. His photos are really stunning and alive!

 

[jeremyteocx]

Please correct me if I'm wrong here... at the wide end, f2.8 is 1/3 of a stop brighter than the f3.5 of the kit lens. At the tele end, it's up to 1 1/3 stops brighter. In most circumstances, the kit lens (with use of flash) should suffice right?

While I haven't even handled a f2.8 zoom yet, in my use of my sigma 30mm/1.4 for indoor/low-light photography, if I find myself using apertures smaller than f/2, I just switch back to my kit lens. As such, I felt that the oft-recommended f/2.8 standard zooms don't provide all that much benefit over the current kit lens.

erm you didn't get my point. yes flash suffices for anything. i can shoot at an f10 and use flash and it will still 'suffice'. my point of wide aperture n high ISO with flash is to allow for more ambient light to give the flash a natural and less harsh effect.

may i ask, why do u choose not to use your f1.4 aperture during low light situations?

 

[ramian]

erm you didn't get my point. yes flash suffices for anything. i can shoot at an f10 and use flash and it will still 'suffice'. my point of wide aperture n high ISO with flash is to allow for more ambient light to give the flash a natural and less harsh effect.

may i ask, why do u choose not to use your f1.4 aperture during low light situations?

This is going very OT...

My point was that since there is only about 1 stop difference between f/2.8 and kit lens at most focal lengths, it would not be all that hard to reduce shutter speed or increase ISO by 1 stop to compensate, or just under-expose by 1EV at worst and fix in PP. With proper bounced/diffused lighting, I think it should still be possible to get a not-so-harsh effect.

I don't doubt that you are right. I just don't think f/2.8 is the magic bullet to the much maligned kit lens.

Also, it's not that I don't want to use f/1.4 in low-light situations... there are times when the DoF is too narrow, and when I start closing up the aperture to smaller than f/2 or f/2.8, the zoom of the kit lens outweighs the advantages of the sigma.

Back on-topic, I don't think the 17-85 is all that much of an "upgrade" over the 18-55 IS kit lens.

 

[calebk]

Please correct me if I'm wrong here... at the wide end, f2.8 is 1/3 of a stop brighter than the f3.5 of the kit lens. At the tele end, it's up to 1 1/3 stops brighter. In most circumstances, the kit lens (with use of flash) should suffice right?

While I haven't even handled a f2.8 zoom yet, in my use of my sigma 30mm/1.4 for indoor/low-light photography, if I find myself using apertures smaller than f/2, I just switch back to my kit lens. As such, I felt that the oft-recommended f/2.8 standard zooms don't provide all that much benefit over the current kit lens.

Wrong. f/2.8 is 2/3 stops brighter than f/3.5, and 2 stops brighter than f/5.6, as illustrated in the following flow:

f/2.8, f/3.2, f/3.5, f/4, f/4.5, f/5, f/5.6

This means to say that compared to f/2.8, you are getting a shutter speed that is 4x as fast, compared to f/5.6. In other words, if I can get a shutter speed of 1/30s with f/5.6, I can achieve 1/125s shutter speed with f/2.8. That makes a huge difference when it comes to stopping motion and your images suffering subject movement blur. I don't understand why you would switch out to a much slower lens than your 30 f/1.4.

While I see the convenience of a zoom, I would use a prime any day if it allows me an aperture advantage over my zoom, which is why I still shoot with a 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8, even though I have a 24-70. When light goes low, you'll realise how godsent a large aperture lens is.

 

[ramian]

Wrong. f/2.8 is 2/3 stops brighter than f/3.5, and 2 stops brighter than f/5.6, as illustrated in the following flow:

f/2.8, f/3.2, f/3.5, f/4, f/4.5, f/5, f/5.6

Thanks for clarifying that. 2 stops would make it slightly harder to compensate by slowing down shutter or increasing ISO.
Nonetheless, I am happy with the shots from my kit lens and don't feel I am losing out on much not having f/2.8. If I do need something with wider aperture, I do have my sigma 30mm which I do use more often until I don't really need such a shallow DoF or my back hits a wall.

 

[limkailun]

Is this lens good? Thinking of upgrading from the basic 18-55mm kit lens.

I have the exact dilemma as you and I fully support the choice of upgrading to 17-85mm.
I was having doubt after purchasing this lense but it works almost perfectly for me.

The IS on this lense works superbly and has fast focus speed. I would say pros weigh higher than cons and given my budget, its a good upgrade.

Do check out some of my pictures taken from this lense, www.fotologue.jp/kai-folio.

Cheers.

 

[ericyeow88]

i see.. thanks everyone for their help and suggestions.
Guess what i'll do is walk around and just snap pics from the 18-55 kit lens.. maybe after a 2 or 3 months, when i know what i really need, then i'll make my purchase accordingly =)

 

[maikuraki]

is there any difference between the kit 17-85mm compared to the ones u purchase individually? from what i see the one that comes with the kits doesnt says made in japan?

 

[calebk]

is there any difference between the kit 17-85mm compared to the ones u purchase individually? from what i see the one that comes with the kits doesnt says made in japan?

Erm, no difference.

 

[maikuraki]

thanks for the reply but am i right to say 17-85 that comes with the lens mainly from taiwan?

Erm, no difference.

 

[hehahe]

Look head on at the lens. It is printed:

"Canon Made In Japan Φ67mm Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM"

 

[ManWearPants]

if you are thinking of 17-85 for the range, why not go 18-200 for moooore range.

I would opt for the 17-50f2.8 as well. You gotto try it to feel the difference. No point "talking on paper"

 

[TsQ]

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 with no IS, is that gonna be a problem? ... tempted to get this lens as a upgrate from my kit lens 18-55

 

[enkindel]

What abt the difference in image quality between the 17-85mm IS vs 18-55 NON-IS?

I was also thinking of the 17-85 as an upgrade for my NON-IS 18-55. Should i proceed?

I've heard comments of issues with front/back focussing with the tamron 17-50 f2.8. Is it true?

 

[stanycjw]

A new one goes for about $620 from MS colour based on the e-quote i got last month. Ultimately depends on what you want to shoot and how much you are willing to pay.

Hi, bubagump

Sorry to interrupt.

1. I am using Sigma 18-200 DC OS and looking into this 17-85 as well. Just got equote from Cathay P yesterday and the price is S$841.00 (Paid Cash)

Can you please let me hv the contact for MS color.

By the way, few CSers' selling at S$400, if a brand new cost $620 then USED should be around S$300-350 am I correct?


Thanks, please revert and again SORRY to interupt.
stanycjw

 

[FIRDIE]

definitely go for the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or the sigma 24-70 f/2.8 .