Two Questions

[jeffzoom91]

Seeing as how I'm on a budget, and am going to Europe for two weeks shortly, I was wondering if anyone has had any experience renting lenses.

The second question is: What to get?

First of all, I'm shooting with a Canon XTi, so I have the sensor crop to deal with. That said, I'd like to take advantage of that, and at the moment I'm between two lenses

the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 and the EF-S 17-85 f4.0 IS

I am currently carrying a 24-85 as my walk around lens, and for this trip I want to be able to shoot wider, clearer images with better quality glass.

Granted, the first thing that pops into my head is some L-glass, but with the crop factor I lose my advantage in the wide angle department.

So with that out of the picture it leaves me with the EF-S lenses. The 17-55 isn't as versatile as the 17-85 and doesn't offer Image Stabilization, but has the nice aperture which could be helpful for indoor shooting, which I wouldn't be doing much of.

The 17-85 does offer IS, but lacks that nice bokeh-creating f2.8 the 17-55 has.

So, if you could take either lens as a walk around lens in europe for two weeks, which would you take?

 

[LittleCanonKid]

The 17-55 f/2.8 IS does indeed have IS. It has IS, USM and of course the constant f/2.8 aperture. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 does not have IS, though.

I would go for the 17-55, but I shoot more indoors and the f/2.8 is nice. I've seen handheld shots at 1/2 a second at 17mm with IS engaged--that's pretty cool. The 17-85 is slow (f/4-5.6, not a constant f/4) and it wouldn't be as much use to me. It might for you though, if you're willing to sacrifice a stop to two stops for the extra range.

 

[Phrasikleia]

As LittleCanonKid mentioned, the 17-55 does have IS, and very effective IS at that. I find that it is the perfect walk-around lens because it hits an ideal range of focal lengths and is so versatile with its f2.8 and IS combination. It also renders beautiful colors, has wonderful contrast, and is very sharp. My only complaint about it is that it's big and heavy, but I've really gotten used to it. Now my other lenses seem small when I mount them.

 

[HBOC]

the 17-55 is amazing! It really should be called 17-55L! It is as sharp as a 17-40L and is sharper than my 10-22mm was, and that was a very sharp lens (atleast my copy was). I would avoid the 17-85. I have used one for a few weekends and i really wasnt happy with the results. I mean it is a decent lens, but i wouldnt use it to go to europe. You cant re-do shots, ya know? Not like it is a quick trip and can re-shoot.

If i were you (and i am assuming you are going to be buying one of these lenses), i would take the 24-105L IS over either of those. You lose a bit on the wide end, but it is a way more usable range. You lose a few stop or so, but if you tripod mount it, you'll be fine. I do believe the 17-55 and the 24-105 are in the same price range, $900-1000.

 

[CK.]

The reason that 17-55 isn't an L lens is that Canon does not make L's with EF-S-mount, however. Which is a pity, that 17-55 could've loved some weather sealing and fullframe-mounting.

 

[toxic]

short answer is 17-55 or UWA (e.g. 10-22)