waTSX

Why are you selling it? That sounds like a perfect lens for the 5D and you take really nice photos with it.

MrChad

You own a 24-105 IS?, then just stop looking - why bother looking at the f/2.8 glass? The 24-105 isn't going to change much vs. owning the larger heavier 24-70L. If you need a low light lens buy a fast cheap used prime on eBay and move on....

My one buddy still shoots the 28-70L/2.8. Shoot a good lens and ignore other glass and focus on the results not the lens.

srika

What does it mean when a piece of glass is "good" compared to another identical lens - what would be bad about it? Sharpness? Distortion? Speed? Asking because I don't know.

Yes it is quite a good match, great walk-around lens. But, I personally believe the 24-70 is too. I just think both lenses are very similar, aside from the zoom difference. For that, I figure I can just get closer, or crop. The higher weight is a non-issue. I don't see why I would keep both. And another thing, with as easily as this cam attracts dust, I want to be changing lenses as little as possible, preferably never. So even if I had both lenses, chances are I would pretty much never use the 24-105. And the icing on the cake is, it'll help me pay for the 24-70.

On a related sidenote - starting this week I'm gonna be taking a LOT of club pics (Thu-Sat @ multiple places) - I accepted a "real" job doing it. Before it was more of a "freelance" kind of thing, there was nothing really set in place schedule-wise. I will need to produce about 400 pics per week. And, after my recent experience shooting with a friend's 24-70, I'm pretty much convinced that's the lens I need for this job. PP was so minimal with it - there's no way in hell I would be able to invest the amount of time I currently do with PP if I need to produce that many pics per week.

jupitersolo

I have read about people buying a lens and not liking the results, whatever the problem may be. One or two have said they have return some three to four times before finding a lens that they would consider perfect.

With my 100mm macro, I didn't like what I saw with the first one. It didn't have the sharp clear image that it should have. I return it and I'm happy with the second one.

srika

I need the low light performance. Why would I keep a 105 sitting around and use a cheap 2.8 as my primary lens?

edit: maybe I should wait for you to have a look at the last paragraph of post 203..

srika

hmm.. .well.. I hope its ok. That would really suck if I sold the 105 and wasn't happy with the 70. I'd probably be kicking myself. But - one of the best club photographers in the country uses the 24-70 as his primary lens... so I just can't help but think, if I want to progress, why shouldn't I be using that lens as well. I really think it'll be a step forward for what I want to do.

jupitersolo

I would make sure that the 24-70 is a good lens before you get rid of the 24-105. I'm not saying not to make the switch. Just be careful when you do. I'd hate for you to go out and shoot a whole night before you know about the lens, keep the 24-105 handy just to be sure.

srika

well.. looks like I got a buyer for the 105. kinda happy though, I was unsure how easy it would be to sell. I hope I don't miss it. I'm gonna buy the 24-70 new at a store here, and I'll do a test shoot.. if I have trouble with it I figure I can just exchange it.

cmark

anyone have thoughts on a Canon EF-S 17-85mm F/4-5.6 IS USM? It'll be for a XTi. I have the kit lens already but some guy is selling one for $375 locally and I thought it'd be a nice lens to keep on most of the time.

Mizouse

wndrlst has it i believe

wndrlst

I own that lens, and use it as my primary walk-around. I have mixed feelings about it.

I feel like the focal range is just about perfect for a general walk-around on a cropped body. The IS is nice, and even thought the macro capability isn't 1:1, it still does a decent job as a pseudo-macro, and provides nice bokeh when used wide open at that focal distance.

BUT. It's a fairly slow lens. The IS assists you when it comes to shutter speed, of course, but if you're looking to limit your DoF, you're SOL much of the time. Also, I've been less than impressed with the sharpness of this lens. Oh, & it collects a lot of dust behind the front element, but I've not seen any degradation in image quality from that.

I've been contemplating selling mine for a 17-55 IS. I'll be sad to lose the extra range, but from everything I've read and seen, it's a far superior lens, and is much faster. (I really like to play with shallow DoF & bokeh).

SO. I'd say it depends on how serious you are about your photography, what size you plan to print, what you're looking to shoot, etc. (Wanna buy mine? )

wndrlst

Handruin

I think it's over because I looked up the item number at B&H (PPE07D1CKN) and they're now asking $1,139.00. I found the deals from reading the forums at fredmiranda.com.

Handruin

As mentioned above, I've also heard it's possible to get a bad copy of any lens. I've taken about 400+ pictures with my 24-70mm and I'm happy with the results so far. I've heard a majority say it's a great lens, but some had received bad copies. Canon has been making it for years now, so I'm hoping they've worked out any bugs in the manufacturing. So far I'm loving the colors and contrast with it. You can test it by taking pictures of things like a brick wall and then look at all the edges and compare it to the center and see if everything looks sharp at all different f-stops. Ill probably try it while it's under warrant in case there are any issues.

I never thought the weight of this lens would be an issue (and I own the 70-200 F2.8/L mind you) but my hand was cramping up during a photo shoot on this past Sunday. I underestimated the weight of this lens when using it on my 1D MKIII. I'm still going to keep it, but I need to be mindful to support the camera with both hands more frequently. I read others saying things about the weight and thought to myself that it can't be a big deal, but i was surprised at my hand cramping up. Plus it was cold outside so that didn't help things. Just keep that in mind that it has some weight to it, but it feels well-built.

srika

thanks - I can get it locally at Calumet Photo (1 mile from where I live) for $1100 (reg price $1179). Not too bad for local.

good advice - I will try out that test.

Regarding paragraph 2 - do you have a hand-grip? I have one and without it, there's no way I'd be able to carry my cam around for hours on end. But with it, it's like I'm not even holding it. After you use it for a while, you will have trouble holding your camera without it.

Pros:
- makes it easier to carry your camera
- secures the cam to your hand (which is especially important if you are shooting in heavily-populated areas where there is a chance your camera can get knocked out of your hand (such as a club).
- cheap

Cons:
- this won't apply to you but if you use it with an external battery grip, it's a bitch to setup and a common discussion at the various boards. And, it will make you never want to take your grip off.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...E1-Review.aspx

Handruin

That's a decent price for local. I paid $12 for shipping at B&H, but the price was just too good to wait ($996 total). I've written posts on AZ where I've debated getting this lens. Now that I have a smaller crop body (1.3 vs 1.6), I decided to go for the 24-70. So far I'm happy with mine, but time will tell.

I need to do some of my own to see how mine is. There are other tests with printing text and taking pictures at the different focal lengths along with different aperture settings. Some of the important things to focus on is using a tripod and using the mirror lockup to remove any chance of interfering with the quality of the image.

I read about using a brick wall somewhere online because it has lines and lots of texture to see if your lens can hold the quality all throughout the edges of the lens.


I do not have the hand-grip, but I should consider one. I use the neck strap right now and usually carry the camera over my shoulder. When I'm shotting pictures, I usually twirl the slack in the strap around my arm. I do this to keep it out of the picture, and also in case someone bumps me or the camera so that it is at least around my hand/arm. It's still not as good as the hand-grip, but better than nothing. I saw references to the hand-grip in the instruction manual but I've never seen anyone with one of them to ask if it was worth it. Thanks for the link, I'll look into it. For you and the work you do in a club, it's probably more ideal for you. I've never done anything like that in highly populated areas, so I haven't had to worry about it.

jupitersolo

I used my 1D3 with 70-200 2.8 this past weekend about 500 pictures. I used the hand strap, it makes such a difference. What I needed the next day was a leg massage from all the squatting I was doing. I've also been using a hand squeeze, it's a stress ball.

srika

funny because I took pics of a brick wall just 2 days ago to send to the guy who bought the lens, as samples. Not with a tripod though - it was in broad daylight so it was very easy to shoot.

The primary reason I mentioned the hand strap in reference to what you said is because it will lighten the load greatly. You can let the weight of the cam rest on the back of your hand, rather than having to grip the camera to hold it (that's what makes your arm tired). Hope that makes sense. That is one of the biggest advantages of the strap.

I used to wrap the neckstrap around my wrist/arm to hold the cam secure before I got the strap too - and I don't think there's any comparison between that and the strap. I've had the strap for a year now, it cost something like $7. The pain of installing it is diminutive when considering the benefits.

Here is how it's installed - the neck strap stays attached:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...ad.php?t=57766

jupitersolo

Thanks for the link, I had to take the handstrap off my 30D, when trying to put it on M3, it was driving my nuts. It took like 15 minutes and I have it on upside down, but I like the straps facing down.

cmark

Thanks for the review. I'm no pro by any stretch and I don't plan on making poster sized pics. I'm just getting started in this and was just thinking it could be a nice walk around lens. I think I'll be doing a lot of interior shots so the IS should come in handy because I don't want to use a flash all the time.

How much you wanna sell it for?

Handruin

I'd agree with wndrlst in the review of the 17-85mm EF-S lens. I own this same lens and bought it as my first lens to go with my 20D (paid over $600 2+ years ago for it...bleh).

It works well, but it has always left much to be desired for me. After a while I found it to be my least-used lens and I honestly dread using it in chance of not taking the best possible photo at any location I might go. I'd rather use one of my other lenses even if the focal length wasn't the most convenient. I don't mean to sound harsh about it (given I also own it), but I didn't know that much about photography at the time I bought it, so that's my excuse.

However, I do feel like this lens has its good moments. Here is a picture my girlfriend took using my 20D and 17-85mm that I really like:

(click to enlarge if you desire)

Mizouse

i have the canon E1 hand strap and found it useless for the rebel body IMO, i feel that because the rebel is small and it took extra effort just to get the strap over my hand and didn't feel any better. i would imagine with a XXD series body it would help out better.

wndrlst

I find myself using my others when possible as well, although I don't dodge it as much as you, probably. I'd say a good 80% of all the photos I've taken in the past year were taken with that lens.

It doesn't suck, I'm just wanting to upgrade. I think for a beginner walk-around it's more than adequate, especially if you can pick up a used one. (Unfortunately cmark, I can't sell it yet, because I have too many other things to spend cash on right now - can't replace it! )

waTSX

Wndrlst's assessment about the 17-85 is accurate, IMO. It's a good lens with some shortcomings (like almost all camera gear if you're critical about it...nothing's perfect). I used it for three years and took some of my favorite shots with it. It's biggest strengths are the IS and the great focal range, which is just about ideal for 1.6 bodies. It's also compact and light. That said, I ended up getting the EF-S 17-55 a while ago and haven't looked back. Much better IQ and faster. I sold the 17-85 to a buddy an he's happy with it.

I'd say get the 17-55 if you can swing it. You lose some range, but you get a tack-sharp, constant aperture lens with great color and contrast. It stays on my camera 95% of the time.

wndrlst

Dammit, waTSX, you're making me want to drop the cash, now.


Must. Resist. Temptation.

waTSX

cmark, I'd check out Fred Miranda. You might be able to find a used 17-85 for a good price there, if that's the way you want to go.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/10

cmark

sounds like the 17-55mm would be the way to go from all the positive praise. unfortunately, i cannot justify the significant price difference at this time since i'm still a newbie at this photography stuff.

that said, is $375 a good price for the 17-85mm or should i haggle it?

waTSX

That's a good price if the lens is in good condition. It was $600 when it first came out, and you can get it for $500 new at this time. That said, a little haggling never hurt anyone.

cmark

according to the listing, it's brand spankin new - never even mounted...hmmmm

http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/pho/468793634.html

wndrlst

^If it's legit, that's a very good price.

waTSX

Well, the good thing is that it's local, and you can check the lens out first hand. If it is legit and you really want that lens, I'd jump on it. That's a great price for a new 17-85. One thing I'd check for is dust under the front element. If there's none, chances are that the seller is honest and it's never been used.

It should be obvious if it's in new condition.

Handruin

I've heard Canon can be "funny" about warranty service from non-authorized resellers. Just keep that in mind if you might need to obtain warranty service on the lens (assuming it's under warranty). At that price I'd have trouble parting with mine (given I paid full price for mine at B&H 2 years ago).

jupitersolo

Ask the seller for a copy of the receipt. Canon USA will not fix anything under warranty w/o a copy of the sales receipt.

dom

If anyone is interested, Canadian pricing on some Canon lenses has come down considerably.

Example: 70-200 f4L is now $599. Tack on the 75 mail in rebate and its less than US pricing.

Check out Henrys.com for more info.

fdl

You going to pull the trigger?

srika

Anyone heard any buzz about new Canon lenses coming around the corner? Any possible specs, etc.

MrChad

Are you talking about the 200/2.0 EF IS and 800mm/5.6 EF IS super-primes?

srika

no, talking about more general purpose lenses.

MrChad

Have you heard any real rumors? The forums love to speculate on a 24-70L-IS but they've been doing that as long as they have had a rumor for the 100-400L replacement too.

If they did replace the 24-70L I would expect a new set of elements for better corner performance on the 1Ds mk3 maybe even an 82mm front element, as I expect Canon to adopt a common 82mm front filter on all the main zooms in f/2.8 Thus you can own the trio and keep every filter constant.

Canon did this on the past with 77mm line...it just makes sense to me.

But IS would push the 24-70L over $1600 easy, they may or may not do that. Especially with a 17-55 IS and 24-105 IS in the lineup now.

Nikon's new 14-24 and 24-70/2.8 have my attention though.

srika

no not really but I just thought all the rebates might be a cue .. but i dunno.