[Slicker]

Hi,

I am looking to buy a new lens to replace my 18-55 kit lens.

Initially I was looking at the 17-85 IS lens as a good replacement. Then I thought, would I be better to buy the 17-40L which seems a fairly good price for an L lens and then buy another lens to bridge the gap between 40 and 70 (I already have a 70-300)

I don't have a huge amount to spend ~£500 at the moment I think so I am not sure if I will manage the two lenses to cover the range that I am looking for.

Your thoughts and advice please?

Thanks
Paul

[silkstone]

I've not used the 17-85, but I have the 17-40 and can recommend it. The build and image quality are good, and of course it will also do just fine if you ever buy a full-frame camera.

You may find that there's no need to fill the gap between 40 and 70, although the 50mm f/1.8 will do that if you like. I've never found it to be a problem, and with the resolution of modern cameras you can always crop a little from 40mm.

[Whipspeed]

I've used both lenses and sold the 17-85. It was an ok walkabout lens, but didn't produce shots as good as the 17-40 or the 24-105.

[M1ke A]

I've had my 17-40 for over 4 years which I think says it all. But how about the EFS 17-55?

f2.8 + IS and the results I've seen have been good. Does blow your budget though....

[Steve]

I am another happy user of a Canon 17-40L lens

[P-E]

I don't know why but I never really liked the 17-40L.......it does gets some excellent reviews though.

[Boofers]

I grabbed my wife's 17-85 the other day and tried out the macro setting,,worked good and the IS seemed to work even better then I thought it would. It wouldn't take a 2X converter being an S lense. I also have a 17-40L and it is my main wide angle lense,,,but for the wife the 17-85 works fine and gives her that extra range shes wanted that I would not even notice. It's a personnal choice in habits I guess.