Photography Shoutbox

[xluben]

That's a pretty good price. They normally go for around $300 used.

The real benefit of that lens isn't a 1/2 stop. It's the fact that it has USM focusing (and still has IS).

Other than focusing speed the 18-55 IS is about as sharp and the aperture difference really is minimal. The 18-55 IS is a lot smaller/lighter, but also not quite as well built.

 

[Nismode]

That's a pretty good price. They normally go for around $300 used.

The real benefit of that lens isn't a 1/2 stop. It's the fact that it has USM focusing (and still has IS).

Other than focusing speed the 18-55 IS is about as sharp and the aperture difference really is minimal. The 18-55 IS is a lot smaller/lighter, but also not quite as well built.

Hmm well just when I was dead set on finding a 17-85 IS USM lens, I come across this:

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 Review

OS=IS for Sigma, HSM=USM (no FTM focusing though), and the fast aperture at the wide end is enticing. Doesn't extend or rotate for focusing/zooming, and Amazon has it for ~$200. Decisions, ugh.

Btw I didn't mean to disrespect you w/the PM for the 40D, I was just going by what I was seeing on the classifieds. Not sure how much you were looking to sell it for, but yea.

 

[Nismode]

And I haven't heard back from the guy who said he'd sell it to me for $250 from CL

So I'm looking on ebay for a few copies.

 

[xluben]

The Sigma's pretty blah. I'd probably get the 17-85 even if it costs a little more.

If you really want to step up, look into one the constant f/2.8 zooms. The Canon 17-55 is pretty spendy, but similar Sigma or Tamron's get good reviews and cost half as much.

No problem on the 40D, just WAY less than what they go for on MN Craigslist. I have relisted mine several times and always get half a dozen e-mails and then they all back out!!!

 

[inspired1]

The Sigma's pretty blah. I'd probably get the 17-85 even if it costs a little more.

If you really want to step up, look into one the constant f/2.8 zooms. The Canon 17-55 is pretty spendy, but similar Sigma or Tamron's get good reviews and cost half as much.

Yea, Danny recommends the Sigma 24-70mm F/2.8 over the Canon 24-70mm F/2.8 L.

 

[Nismode]

The Sigma's pretty blah. I'd probably get the 17-85 even if it costs a little more.

If you really want to step up, look into one the constant f/2.8 zooms. The Canon 17-55 is pretty spendy, but similar Sigma or Tamron's get good reviews and cost half as much.

No problem on the 40D, just WAY less than what they go for on MN Craigslist. I have relisted mine several times and always get half a dozen e-mails and then they all back out!!!

Any reason? That aperture sounds good at the wide end, I'm tempted (esp at the price lol). Have you used it?

Those constant zooms are $$...Not looking to spend that much yet. Having another decently fast lens besides my nifty fifty would be good.

 

[xluben]

USM and IS are a winning combo.

You should NOT think of any of those variable aperture lenses as "fast". They are not.

If that's what you want, keep the 18-55 IS and start saving.

 

[inspired1]

I only consider F/2.0 and faster to be "fast" F/2.8 is still Normal for me. haahha.

 

[ryan s]

only my kit lens is slower than f/2.8

 

[Nismode]

I didn't say it was fast, but it is faster than the normal 18-55 kit lens, especially at the wide end (f/2.8 vs f/3.5 (or f/4 for the 17-85)) and the tele end (f/4.5 vs f/5.6)

May not make that much of a difference but if I can get it for cheap, why not? It'll be up to me to decide since no one has first hand experience with it.