Canon Mid range zoom, what to go for?

R

Ribbo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
41
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

New to the forum this is my first thread so be kind to a newbie!

I am looking to update my mid-range zoom at the moment I have the kit 18-55mm 4.5-5.6 which came with my 20D. I haven't really used it that much as I have a 15-30mm Sigma and a Canon 60mm 2.8 USM which I favour over the kit lens and have compromised with up to now. The main reason that I haven't bought anything to cover the range better was so that I could afford to buy a 70-200 f2.8 L USM and I don't regret waiting as I love this lens!

However I am finding that I want to shoot in the 30-60mm range more and more and using my 15-30 less (so I will probably sell this to put towards the new lens).

I am looking mainly at the 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM and I'm about 95% going to go for this. I just wanted to see if anybody has any other suggestions which are comparable in range and quality?

I was tempted by the 17-40mm f4 L but I think I would benefit more from the 2.8. I also want the larger range available on the 17-55. Slightly hesistant on the 17-55 due to it being EF-S but I think I'd keep my 20D even if I do eventually buy a full frame dslr at some point (not point soon though)

Any input gratefully received!

Cheers
 
How about the tamron 17-50 f/2.8? About half the price of the canon 17-55 but performs nearly as well. You can pcik up the non-OS version for around £300 atm.
 
i had a 24mm lens on my 20d and it hust isn't wide enough, no using a 40d and tamron 17-50 and liking the range, just not sure the focus speed is up to rallying, one way to tell, 2 rallies next weekend in no doubt crap light
 
Thanks for the responses!

I want something a little wider than the 24-70mm as I wont be moving to FF anytime soon and as I think I will probably sell my 15-30mm Sigma to partially fund the new lens I dont want to be without a wide lens

The Tamron 17-50 sounds interesting. Anybody know how it compares to the Canon? Obviously it will be considerably cheaper but is it worth paying the extra for the "near L" quality of the Canon?

Thanks
 
I've had 24-70, 24-105 and have now settled on the 17-55. It's a cracking lens, great quality and the only way you can get f/2.8 and IS from Canon in this range.
 
Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 is quite a popular upgrade choice from the kit lens, its well built and pretty sharp, I love it as the range is great for a walkabout lens. There is also an image stabilizer version called OS by sigma.
 
Thanks All,

I think I am going to pay out for the Canon 17-55 2.8 as it sounds like the lens I'm after and people seem to be impressed who own one. A little painful on the wallet for a non L but it should be a keeper!

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top