Downgrading to 18-55mm IS kit lens - am I mad?

G

grahamsewelluk

Suspended / Banned
Messages
247
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a Canon 40d with the 17-85mm IS lens and as a package it take great photos, but it is just to big and heavy to bother carrying when I just want to go for a walk.

As the 18-55mm IS f3.5-5.6 lens seems to get reasonable reviews and is a lot smaller/lighter, would I be mad using it as a walkaround lens?
 
If the 18-55 lets you use the camera more & gives you the results you want then :clap:

If it works for you, don't let anybody talk you out of it :)
 
mrgubby said:
If the 18-55 lets you use the camera more & gives you the results you want then :clap:

If it works for you, don't let anybody talk you out of it :)
Click to expand...

:agree: Yup, what he say.
 
Having had both these lenses in the past I can say I didn't notice much difference between them optically. The 17-85 has better build and has USM, FTM and a longer range but the 18-55 isn't exactly slow or noisy to focus either.

Do you have a nifty fifty? That would be lighter still and optically better than the zooms. Depends if you use 50mm much. The 35/f2 is always an alternative but is more expensive.
 
if it suits you then yes, although I wouldn't reccommend it as your only lens.
 
Downgrading to get out more is a great idea. I did it on a different level with my wildlife lens. Went from a 300mm F2.8 to a 300mm F4 IS and found I was enjoying going out getting out more often
 
whatever gets you carrying the camera with you is the best solution, but having googled the 2 lenses you are going to save 275 grams are you going to notice that significantly?
 
Slightly off topic here but if theres not much in the IQ why is the 17-85 so much more expensive ?
 
Relating to my earlier post, one of the reasons I'd like canon 50mm f/1.8 is that its so light. With that on my body it will be dead easy to take the camera out and about. so if it makes you enjoy photography more, do it.
 
Mad? Yes, the 17-85mm isnt that heavy compared to other lens. If you make the swap then your going to swap back in another month. Yours losing a sharper, better built, better zoom.
 
The weight of the 18-55 is approximately 200grams.
The 17-85 signicantly heavier at almost 500grams. That's around 2/3rds as heavy as the 40D, meaning that with the 17-55 on the 40D the camera is going to be substantially heavier. It might not seem like much briefly, but over time it will make a difference.
 
Not Canon but Nikon.

I use a 18-55 kit lens on my D90, it is reconed to be, by one pundit, one of the best 10 Nikkors EVER made.

Who am I to argue :shrug:
 
In my opinion if youre saying your present equipment is to heavy i think its best to downgrade to a XXXd body as well.

Downgrading to get out more is a great idea. I did it on a different level with my wildlife lens. Went from a 300mm F2.8 to a 300mm F4 IS and found I was enjoying going out getting out more often
__________________
Richard
Click to expand...
I can see your logic but isnt there a difference of a 1,000g in your case?

As someone that uses a wide angle zoom, i'd find a 50mm totally useless on a crop sensored camera.

Maybe the solution to this is buy a compact

Dave
 
I used to have a 400d which I loved for a few features:
-light
-easy to use menu
but I upgraded to the 40d for:
-14 bit processing
-6 frames per second (great for showjumping)
-better auto-focus
-better noise at higher ISO
-better grip design - my hands are a little on the large side for the 400d
-better battery clip design

So overall, I am quite happy with the body.

My lenses now include:
17-85mm IS
18-55mm IS
50mm f1.8 - great for showpumping indoors at Olymia - looking at the 85mm f1.8 for the same reason.
55-250mm IS

The lens I am least likely to carry is the 17-85mm IS!
 
I would say go for a 28, 35 or 50mm prime and use your legs cos using your legs is free! :D
 
Having had a play with both lenses side by side - I have to say that I am impressed with how well the cheaper lens performs. Especially on CA at the tele end (55mm) where it beats the 17-85mm lens by quite a margin.

There is a little pin cushion at the wide end - but nothing that is significantly worse than the more expensive lens.

I appreciate that the 17-85mm lens is better built and has a non-rotating front element so use of a CPL should be easier. HOwever, for the majority of landscapes where the focal point is infinity (or close to it) the front element won't rotate that far.
 
grahamsewelluk said:
I have a Canon 40d with the 17-85mm IS lens and as a package it take great photos, but it is just to big and heavy to bother carrying when I just want to go for a walk.
Click to expand...

40D and a little lens like that is heavy? are you a smurf? :thumbs:
 
buckas,

I just grew up in the 70's when the aim was lightness and was exemplified by the OM-1 (of which I had two). Why carry weight if you get the same results with lighter kit?

And yes, I am a smurf. Used to watch them too in the 70's....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top