I'm going away for a couple of weeks soon, only to the south west of England, but have been thinking about getting a better scenic lens for pics, as I tend to use my old S2 IS for such things, and am obviously missing quality with that.
I have been considering the very well thought of 17-85mm IS lens from Canon, but it's still over £300, which is a fair bit, especially when some comments recently have hinted that the *much* cheaper Canon 18-55mm IS lens, gets as good IQ.
Has anyone got any comments on this - is it worth me getting the cheaper one, or holding out / battering the ccard again for the tried and trusted more expensive lens?
The lens will be used on either a 40D or a 350D.
Cheers,
Pete.
I would not like to say which is the better as I have no experience with the 17-85 but if it is just for scenic shots or family surely the smaller one would be preferable and save £200!!
On a personal note with such small lenses I cannot see the value of IS, with a little light weight lens like these one should be able to hold them steady.
If you can search through the forum, there was a thread testing the 18-55 IS, 17-85 IS and the 55-200 IS. The 18-55 IS came out the best and other reviews have said the same.