Personally, my use for this lens will be rock climbing shots and the
like. I don't mind taking a pricey lens with because photography is
part of the reason for the trip. Plus we're already taking a lot of
expensive gear with us, so what is a bit of glass (ha!).
It has occured to me that a part of the reason for looking at these
lenses is that more and more my friends are asking me to take photos
for them (graduation, band, wedding). Ah, I'm so torn, but I think
I'll go with the 17-55.
A lot of people are praising the 28-135, which is roughly equivalent
to the 17-85EF-S on my 20D - how have people found the quality of the
17-85? Maybe I should save myself some money and get some extra reach?
Cheers
David
The 17-85 is a very decent lens, although if you look closely you can
see the difference to top line lenses. If you are going on a trip
with a 20 or 30D, and want a range of focal lengths, it's hard to
beat the 10-22, 17-85 and new version 75-300IS. The 17-85 has a great
range for most stuff, and will probably be the most used unless you
are doing specialized photography. If you make 8x10 prints, you will
have to look quite closely to see a difference in quality compared
with shots taken with the 17-55. If the lens speed, particularly at
the longer end is going to make a difference, a good choice might be
to take along a 50/1.8.
I have a variety of lenses for Canons, including about 8 L lenses. If
I'm going to a place where I can make use of a particular lens, I
will always take it. I won't go to South Africa without the 100-400,
for example. On the other hand, if I'm going to a meeting or
convention where I will take a lot of indoor shots with people, I'll
take the 24/1.4.
For a one lens situation with rock climbing, I doubt you could do
better than the 17-85. If there was a 15-60IS, I would prefer that
myself, but that's just wishes. Lens speed is relatively unimportant.
Yes, I would prefer to shoot at 100ISO with a fast lens, but in
practice a slower, longer reach lens with the ISO set to whatever it
needs works just fine in actually getting images.
BTW, the IR shot I posted recently was with the 17-85 on a converted 350D:
http://www.archiphoto.com/Various/WPacTrail.jpg
--
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
