I have a Canon 30D with the 18-55mm kit lens and 70-300mm IS. I am wanting to upgrade the glass of the kit lens but would welcome advice on which way to go.
I am not bothered about having a gap between the zoom ranges so total coverage is not an issue. And I doubt I will ever print much larger than A4 (certainly not above A3).

I liked the width that 28m gave m eonly film camera so I would look at getting a 17mm for the crop lens (and am not too bothered about going any wider). My obvious choices are 17-85 IS, 17-55 IS, but I keep thinking about the 16-35L, 17-35L, or the 17-40L (the idea of L glass is just so appealing as one who has never owned one).

Technical question: given that the L lenses are aimed at full-frame sensors, the crop sensor of the 30D will keep the image away from the problematic edges - does this mean that the benefits of the L quality are reduced?

My default choice would be between 17-40L for absolute quality and 17-85 IS for the cheaper price. But this is all based on reviews I have read. My questions on choice are:
- Would people make the same short list or do the other lenses justify being there?
- what lens would be the best for absolute quality?
- How do the Sigma and Tamorn alternatives fare against the Canon range on a crop sensor?

I accept that lens-lens variation is a hot topic, so I don't expect truly definitive answers, just something to help narrow the range a bit.

Thanks for your advice

www.photozone.de Click reviews.

slrgear.com is also good.

For a crop camera the 17-55 IS is about as good as it gets. And you get f2.8.

The tamron 17-50 is also extremely sharp and a bargain.

This weekend I did some testing comparing a new Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro with my standby 17-40 f4 L with a 20D and was quite impressed: the Sigma was easily the sharper of the two at all apertures and focal lengths. I have read many reports of spotty quality control by Sigma, and recommendations to test in-store when possible, but it gets my vote. No real slop in the focus/zoom rings to speak of. Likely not as weatherproof, but at nearly half the cost, it's a strong contender.

Look no further than the...

24-70mm F2.8L

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...70-review.shtml

Aside from drooling over a nice 1.2 or 1.4 prime L...

I find that 2 lenses cover my non pro needs...they are both L glass

the aforementioned

24-70mm F2.8L

and the

70-200mm F4L

and I don't think they are wasted one bit on non full frame sensors


Having been (yes past tense) a film SLR guy all my life when I made a full transition to DSLR not too long ago I knew I wanted to start with L glass and never look back at having made a poor decision...

DSLR bodies are somewhat like your PC in the sense that tech advances will make it obsolete quickly...does not seem to be quite the same for good glass...

While advances in production techniques, OD lenses, IS, coatings, Aspheical elements etc will continue to make it to the market place...

There are lenses out there from long ago that still challenge new glass...not a lot but there are some standouts...

Point is your glass is an investment, make it right the first time and if you upgrade your Digi body later you'll already have the glass to go with it


My 0.02

Cliff

How important is weight vs. having f2.8? And how are you going to use it?
I have a Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5. It's a lovely wee lens, sharp and gives great macro shots and it has stayed in the cupboard the last 6 months since getting the 24-105 f4 is. The extra reach to 105mm did it, and I can have it on the camera with a wrist strap and carry it all day unobtrusively by my side. It's sharper and faster focussing than I am, and if I want to go wider it's usually for landscape and I stitch. Same goes for the 70-200 f4 is. I can carry it the same way with a wrist strap 4 hrs or so before getting tired. I blew all my funds on the lenses figuring the camera will be outdated long before a good lens. Don't worry about the crop sensor.

With my 10D I got both the 17-40/4L and the 70-200/4L. They are both superb. Since I do almost exclusively outdoor natural light photography, I have never wished for a faster lens (or the added weight). I probably used the 17-40/4L for 95% of the images I took with the 10D.

I eventually moved up to a 5D (full-frame), and those two L-lenses still do fine. But I have recently indulged in the 24-105/4L IS, which has become my 90%-of-shots lens, not for the image quality but for the image stabilization, which is worth a lot to me.

Do think about how much hand-held work you do (go for IS if there is much of it), and consider how much indoor/dim light work you do (go for a faster lens if you need that). Also consider how wide you want: for me, 17mm was great on my cropped 10D, but 24mm is (barely) wide enough onmy full-frame 5D. Of course, YMMV.

Good luck with the choice.

I have added a 40D to my 5D and find that an EFS10-22 is a very exciting lens and holds its own with my 17-40. I find that the EFS lens plus a 24-105L cover an extremely useful walkabout range with only a 2mm focal length gap. As for your telephoto, the new 70-200L F4 IS is a tremendous lens on a cropped sensor body and the IS on these two L lenses is vastly improved from earlier `two stop' versions. From my recent experience of the EFS lens I would suspect that the EFS 17-55 F2.8 IS might be a star performer and worth investigating.

Bob Paterson