Canon EF-S 18-200 vs 17-85 as a first lens

[Mr.]

I'm to figure out what to purchase as a first lens for the Canon EOS 40D. I am leaning to either the Canon EF-S 18-200 or 17-85.

I really like the gigantic range of the 18-200, but is it worth the money? Should I instead get the 17-85, give up on the longer zoom for now, and buy a decent zoom later? How 'annoying' is it to change lenses while traveling?

[Narci]

I assume you's want a walk a all around around lens?

From what I have gathered...

If you have cash, a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM.

If your on a budget, a Tamron AF 17-50mm XR F/2.8 Di II

and just for kicks since it's a cheap lens, a Canon Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

[Mr.]

If you have cash, a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM.

If your on a budget, a Tamron AF 17-50mm XR F/2.8 Di II

Have you used these lenses before? Isn't the zoom range kind of small?

[hazman]

Changing a lens is that easiest thing to do, and having the extra lenses with you is not a stretch.

If you are looking for a simple kit, with a decent lens and limited change, then the 18-200 will provide that for you in a single package.
You can allows improve your glass as you grow and pick up specific gear.

I use the 17-85 on my camera and it is pretty good, I would like to step up to one of the 2.8s that were mentioned, but I will have to wait for that.

Whatever you select, just get out there and take lots of pictures, this will help you to become a better photographer and look at the images you like and identify what makes them more appealing.

Also, the comment about the 50mm 1.8, it is a great addition to any kit, they are really cheap and take solid images!

[djmr2]

if you're just starting out and do not know wut kind of lenses you need, then by all means go with the 18-200. It's a decent lens for what it is. Plus you can always sell it later to those looking for a travel lens.

don't try to buy the best limited range lenses if you're not an enthusiast. this hobby can get expensive!

[Mr.]

don't try to buy the best limited range lenses if you're not an enthusiast. this hobby can get expensive!

I've never been sure what defines 'enthusiast,' but i'd say that i'm close!?

[jamescl]

i have these both these lenses and (shameless plug i'm selling a 17-85 IS that I got with a 50D) I'd say the 17-85 is better in terms of picture quality. I'm a believer that new photographers should learn to "zoom by foot" instead of always relying on a huge zoom. I learned only on a 50mm 1.4 despite having a 24-70 L lens, 16-35 L and a 17-55 IS and I think that taught me more about composition and framing then if I had relied on a big zoom. That's just my two cents and I'm sure people will disagree.

[ah_long]

throw the 28-135 into your choices as well

[bob0]

main disadvantage of having a small range is that you may miss a shot having to change lenses. but the main advantage is that the optical quality is usually better.

if you're starting out and dont really care too much about optical quality (ie you havent used anything better) then go for it.

i personally have owned the 17-85 and it was a great walk around lens for me. i had it paired with a 70-300is... changing lenses is pretty simple. but like i was saying, it creates an opportunity to miss a shot. but for what i shoot, i dont really worry too much about that.

[Mr.]

throw the 28-135 into your choices as well

Actually I think I'm not happy enough with the wide end of this lens...If they went 18-135 i'd be sold right now.

[ah_long]

Actually I think I'm not happy enough with the wide end of this lens...If they went 18-135 i'd be sold right now.

i guess so..
but both of the lens you've mentioned are only mediocre.. not saying that the 28-135 would be a lot better, but it does have better optics than the 17-85 and it's an EF lens as opposed to an EF-S

i would look into other options such as the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the sigma equivalent..I believe Sigma and Tamron also have a 18-125 image stabilized offering

[Mr.]

How do those short range lenses fare without stabilization?

[CSAgent]

EF-S lens:

Canon 18-200 = jack of all trades, master of none. PQ is not good at all at 125mm to 200mm (read DPReview.) Wide angle end also bad as well, lots of CA. Great walk around lens, for travel abroad and long hikes where extra weight in gear is not desired.

17-55 = F2.8 w/IS. Sharp as a nail - but limited zoom. L class quality PQ, minus the build. Barely any CA @ widest angle AND when it's wide open. I use this for in-studio, events and professional shoots.

17-85 = very bad pin cushion effect at the shortest range, chromatic aberration prevalent at F4-5.6 in daylight between 17-50mm. However, stop it down to F6.3 and up to reduce the CA. Very sharp at F8 and F9 however. Great beginner lens however, w/IS. PQ better than 18-200mm.

Tammy 17-50 = lack of IS, loud as hell focusing motor (use to the silent Canon USM's). Has trouble with auto focusing. Good picture quality, comes close to the Canon 17-55, close but no cigar. Canon 17-55 still beats it. Bad CA at widest angle wide open. Stop it down to reduce it but you lose out on the F2.8 - it's a cheap man's version of a Canon 17-55mm.

EF Lens

Canon 50mm F1.8 = extremely light. sharp from F5.6 and up. Very bad CA at 1.8 in daylight, but in low light, it's excellent. Motor is a bit loud, think Mk I of Canon's USM. Great for in-studio use of head shots. On cropped bodies (in your case, the 40D) though, it's actually 80mm and not 50mm. (1.6 x 50).

[CSAgent]

How do those short range lenses fare without stabilization?

Follow this golden rule of photography:

Zoom range MUST, MUST EQUAL shutter speed or GREATER without stabilization. This applies to ALL lens out there. It's one of the basics you learn in photography class/books, etc.

E.g.

EF 70-200mm. At 200mm, shutter must be 1/200 or higher to have a sharp image. On a cropped 40D, that translates into 320mm and 1/320.

With IS, you are able to be slower at 1 to 3 stops hand held.

[Mr.]

EF-S lens:

Canon 18-200 = jack of all trades, master of none. PQ is not good at all at 125mm to 200mm (read DPReview.) Wide angle end also bad as well, lots of CA. Great walk around lens, for travel abroad and long hikes where extra weight in gear is not desired.

17-55 = F2.8 w/IS. Sharp as a nail - but limited zoom. L class quality PQ, minus the build. Barely any CA @ widest angle AND when it's wide open. I use this for in-studio, events and professional shoots.

17-85 = very bad pin cushion effect at the shortest range, chromatic aberration prevalent at F4-5.6 in daylight between 17-50mm. However, stop it down to F6.3 and up to reduce the CA. Very sharp at F8 and F9 however. Great beginner lens however, w/IS. PQ better than 18-200mm.

Tammy 17-50 = lack of IS, loud as hell focusing motor (use to the silent Canon USM's). Has trouble with auto focusing. Good picture quality, comes close to the Canon 17-55, close but no cigar. Canon 17-55 still beats it. Bad CA at widest angle wide open. Stop it down to reduce it but you lose out on the F2.8 - it's a cheap man's version of a Canon 17-55mm.

EF Lens

Canon 50mm F1.8 = extremely light. sharp from F5.6 and up. Very bad CA at 1.8 in daylight, but in low light, it's excellent. Motor is a bit loud, think Mk I of Canon's USM. Great for in-studio use of head shots. On cropped bodies (in your case, the 40D) though, it's actually 80mm and not 50mm. (1.6 x 50).

So... do you have any suggestions?