Which Lens?

[Meena]

I`m considering purchasing a Canon EOS 40D as a package deal. I have a 350D now with 18-55 and 50mm portrait lens. Went into Jessops the other day to see what they had to offer. They had a standard kit with 17-85 lens and after speaking with the salesman he said this lens would be ideal for group shots at weddings. Last week I was unsure which camera to go for but after posting a thread made a decision to go for the 40D rather than fork out more on the 5D. Someone on this forum suggested I go for a good lens like the 24-105. As I`m doing photos at my brothers wedding in August, would the 17-85 be suffice for the job or should I go for another lens?

Comments would be much appreciated. x

 

[wez130]

I've personally heard a lot of mied reviews about the 17-85IS and personally wouldn't touch it.

I do however own the 24-105 IS and it is a fantastic lens, being designated an 'L' lens, it's one of canons best. It is F/4 right through so not the perfect portraiture lens (you'd want a prime for that anyway (85mm F/1.8)) but it's more than capable of the subject and you'll get fantastically sharp results, fast focus and of course IS is handy. Even better than the 24-105 though is the 24-70 F/2.8, it's more expensive, no IS but a stop faster so you'll get nicer backgrounds (bokeh) but it's also a larger and heavier lens.

So to summarise, if you want a lens you can use for weddings and also a walkabout lens, get the 24-105, if you can afford the extra and can deal with the extra weight get the 24-70, if the lens' sole purpose is portraiture, get the 85mm F/1.8, it's cheap (£250ish), lightweight and will be sharper than any of the others being a prime.

 

[Alfred D.]

Yes, Meena, the 17-85 (27.5-130mm in 35mm equivalent) is exactly the range you will be using at the wedding. Any wider distorts human faces and figures very unflatteringly, any longer is a waste as you are right on top of things anyway.

 

[wez130]

Yes, Meena, the 17-85 (27.5-130mm in 35mm equivalent) is exactly the range you will be using at the wedding. Any wider distorts human faces and figures very unflatteringly, any longer is a waste as you are right on top of things anyway.

huh? The longer focal length = the further away you are, the shorter length = you on top of everything.

17 will be too wide, the ideal portrait length is between 50mm and 85mm, 100mm is also good for weddings if theres another togger there, you can keep out the way but still take pics.

 

[oldgit]

I've got (and dont use) the 17-85 EFS lens. I swapped (ahem) it out for the 17-55 EFS f2.8 and a 70-200 L.

It is an OK, but not great lens. All the shots I took with it were softer than I would have liked, and it suffers from distortion quite a bit at 17mm, much more than the 17-55 EFS f2.8

Read:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-85mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef-s_17-85_review.html

but then lots of people have one and like it

 

[Meena]

Great, thanx for ** feedback guys. The standard lens on the EOS 350D (which i`m using now) is a 18-55mm and is ideal for getting wider shots but I know not the best lens.

Will shop round and get what I can afford. Not sure if the 24-105 IS will suffice for group shots but hear thats its a good lens to have.

Cheers.