BuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2975 posts, RR: 3 Posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 14603 times:
After considering the Canon 28-135 and 24-105L, I realised I wanted something wider than 24mm, and cover the tele end by a 70-200 f/4L (still to be purchased). I've been reading mixed reviews on the Canon 17-85, and quite reasonable ones about the Sigma 17-70, did anybody compare them? Any thoughts, experiences?
Martin54 From Netherlands, joined Aug 2007, 35 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 14546 times:
During my Canon days I have owned the 17-85 and it was the worst lens I have ever had. Probably I had an extra bad copy but the general opinion on this lens is not very positive, especially if you look at the rather hefty price tag for a consumer lens.
My experience with Sigma is a lot better and I am considering the 17-70 myself to replace my ancient and rattling Nikkor 18-70.
Mfz From Germany, joined Aug 2004, 260 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 14424 times:
Keep away from the Canon 17-85 IS! After having had good results with the EF-S 10-22 as my first EF-S lens in a line-up of L-series-lenses (17-40L, 100-400L) I decided to try the EF-S 17-85. The worst lens I've ever owned! Massive barrel distortion, completely unsharp at 17-30mm, soft contrast, etc.! Borrowed a 24-105L from am colleague for my recent New Zealand-trip and I am totally happy with it! My recommendation: get yourself a 24-105L and enjoy some really nice photos!
Extra Bavariam non est vita et si est non est ita! --- My flights: http://my.flightmemory.com/mfz
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3250 posts, RR: 21
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 14410 times:
Quoting Mfz (Reply 5): My recommendation: get yourself a 24-105L and enjoy some really nice photos!
I have this and it's a great great lens. BUT on a 1.6x body, you need something wider than 24 in a lot of cases. I compliment it with the 17-40 and the combination is awesome. However, I wouldn't have the 24-105L as my only lens on a 1.6x body. It's just not wide enough. For me at least.
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
I hear the new Canon 18-55 IS is kicking butt and taking names in the image quality department, which is very surprising considering it's just a kit lens but it looks like a really good deal if you're broke and don't mind plasticky build quality.