Suitable Canon EF mount equivalent (or similar) of 17-85 EF-S (1 Viewer)

D

davem

Well-known member

• Mar 15, 2010

• #1

Hi all,

I've currently got a Canon 17-85 IS lens which an EF-S fit which is not compatible with the new toy (1D) and I probably can't be bothered to take the 20D with me whenever I may need a smaller zoom apart from as a spare body 'just in case'.

Does anyone have any suggestions for a suitable replacement which will fit the standard Canon EF mount which will do the same sort of job?

I've not got much spare cash so sadly things like Canon's own 24-105 or 24-70 will probably be out of the question as the replacement will probably have to come out of any revenue created by selling the 17-85 but the Sigma 24-70 seems to have its fans.

Any advice very much appreciated

Dave.

 

tdodd

Just call me Tim

• Mar 15, 2010

• #2

Multiply 17-85 by 1.6 and you get (more or less) 28-135. That is the full frame (EF) equivalent of the 17-85. Of course, since you have a 1D and not a 1Ds, strictly speaking, in order to maintain exactly equivalent FOV you'd want a lens of around 21-104. Thus the 24-105 would probably be the closest match that springs to mind.

 

P

paul goode

Well-known member

• Mar 15, 2010

• #3

The Sigma 24-70 I had a while back didn't impress me at all. Hopelessly soft at f2.8 and not much better stopped down. Dog slow AF as well. I flogged it pretty quickly and got a Canon 24-105. In my opinion a far better lens.
However if its out of budget that doesn't help much!
There is Canons 28-135. I don't know much about it but its much less money than the 24-105

 

M

macshark

Electron Chaser

• Mar 15, 2010

• #4

If you are looking for an "affordable" lens, your options are:

Canon EF 28-135 USM IS
Canon EF 24-85mm USM
Canon EF 28-105 F/3.5-4.5 II USM

unless you want to go with a third party option. Basically, fi you don't want to spend a lot of money on the 24-105L, you cannot get the angle of view coverage equivalent to that of a (EF-S 17-85mm IS on a 1.6x crop body)

You can check out a decent reviews of most available lenses at www.fredmiranda.com/reviews

 

Last edited: Mar 15, 2010

D

davem

Well-known member

• Mar 15, 2010

• #5

Thanks for those suggestions guys. I do have a 70-200 so the upper reach is not too desperate - I'd rather have a better quality lens that had a lower reach than something that overlapped what I've already got by a fair margin.

Sadly unless I have a monster day at Cheltenham tomorrow I feel any more Canon L glass is out of the question for a year or so but tonight I'm hearing from a couple of sources that the Tamron 17-50 is well worth considering. Any opinions?

Ta!
Dave.

 

HokkaidoStu

occasional moderator

Staff member

Supporter

• Mar 16, 2010

• #6

davem said:

I'm hearing from a couple of sources that the Tamron 17-50 is well worth considering. Any opinions?

Ta!
Dave.

Click to expand...

I don't think that will work on a 1D body either.

I think Tamron/Sigma both have 24-70/28-70 F2.8 lenses.

 

M

macshark

Electron Chaser

• Mar 16, 2010

• #7

davem said:

Tonight I'm hearing from a couple of sources that the Tamron 17-50 is well worth considering. Any opinions?
Dave.

Click to expand...

Even though that lens will fit on your camera, it will not cover the sensor.

If you are considering a non-Canon lens, the best bet out there is the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD IF. Apart from having the distinction of having the most number of suffixes after the focal length in its name, this lens is generally better regarded than the Sigma options with comparable focal range (28-70 and 24-70 non-HSM). Sigma also has a new 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM lens that is getting excellent reviews, but this lens is nearly as expensive as the Canon EF 24-105L.

 

D

davem

Well-known member

• Mar 18, 2010

• #8

Thanks very much for that, now seriously considering the Tamron. Although I though 28mm was a bit of a narrow starting point for what I was used to, someone sensibly asked me how many photos I'd taken in the past year with the 17-85 that were less than 30mm on the EXIF...