I've read a lot of reviews on the 17-85 and most people think it's a fantastic value for the money. The focal length is great for general purpose which, realistically speaking, is all I'm going to use it for. They say the lens is a tad soft between 17-25 at high aperture, but that's OK because I like depth of field

 

Yeah, you have to get their consent first!

Or hide it well. That means don't use the flash. Hell, you may as well just use a webcam. If you need assistance in using the webcam to catch those "special moments", please refer to American Pie.

 

It's not the size; it's how you use it.

 

Hrmm. I may have confused it with the 17-55. Either way, wait till Vlad chimes in. He's a really great resource for this.

 

The pictures didn't show anything. I hadn't hidden the camera covertly. If she wanted me to delete them, she could have asked. Instead, she THREW THE ENTIRE CAMERA OUT OF HER WINDOW.

What do you do when a suddenly belligerent stranger destroys $900 of your property? I honestly felt like breaking her furniture or something. She only had ~$100 in her purse and, to top it off, I had to walk for about an hour back to my place in an unfamiliar city at 2AM.

 

I just got a 20D with the 17-85mm about a month ago. I am very happy with this combo. The IS on this lense is great and it has a nice range to make it usefull as a walkaround lense.

Of course, I have added a few other lenses to the collection over the last month (its sooo hard not to), but its alot of fun.

 

You made it sound like I'm the only person in the world who don't recommend cheap kit lenses for semi-pro cameras...

I never tried this one lens and can say nothing about it. At $550(?) and with IS, it shouldn't be that bad But that price is very close to L glass price range. Canon's L glass is one of the best lenses you can buy for your Canon. And when you buying 1.5K semi-pro camera, it seems logical to me add pro glass too. Yes, sometimes in some conditions difference isn't that big with non-L lenses... But then, why to buy semi-pro body at all? I mean if one doesn't want the very best... 7 points focus vs. 9 will make far smaller difference in results than L glass vs. average.

 

I have been looking into the L's I have yet to find one that I am really happy with for a true walkaround. Most aren't wide anough for me on a 1.6x crop body for landscapes and architecture shots. There's the 17-40L, but 40 just isn't enough reach. That's whay I went with the 17-85 IS.

To be honest, I like my 70-200 f4L as well, but don't see it as embarrasingly better than the 17-85. Sure, the build quality is outstanding and the images are great, but I I have been really impressed with what I've been geting from the 17-85 as well.

I agree that the 18-55 is a cheapy lens that should probably be skipped when mated with the 20D, but I think the 17-85 kinda makes sense as a good place to start. Its not a pro-level lense, but maybe its just a notch below. Sounds just like the 20D to me.

 

Just got this camera last weekend with the 17-85. Very happy with it so far.

Check out buydig.com. You can buy this combo for $1644 after rebates.

 

Ok I'll stick with my phone cam.

 

Ok I'll stick with my phone cam.

Sounds like you think taking pictures is simply point and click.

 

Man, I remember the A1...that was the most technologically advanced SLR of its day. Nothing like the old-school 35mm's.

I did photography in high school as well and I used everything from a Nikon F2 to a Rolliflex thanks to my photographer dad. This was my favorite all-around camera due to its relative small size and the razor-sharp lenses available.



I've never used the 20D, but the critics seems to like it. I've used a Nikon D70 a bit and it seems like a good camera as well.

 

That's when knowing lawyers on my350z.com can be useful.

 

That was my reasoning

 

well, i bought the canon digital rebel xt the other day, took it back cuz it takes REALLY blurry photos, no matter what. Something to do with anti-aliasing. I now have a new camera (different) on the way. VERY DISSAPOINTED with canon and digi slr

 

Damn this thread grew fast...

Congrats shiva. I couldn't quite put the dough down for the 20D, so I had to settle for the 350D. I'm missing a few functions plus the infamous wheel, but glass is where it's at.

If you're not acquainted to the SLR scene, be prepared for a nice learning curve. Good luck!

edit: oh, I see you have some shooting experience.

edit: oh and pricing I've seen has been around the $1300 range or so... some a bit less and some a bit more...

 

Hmm... haven't experienced that nor read any reviews that corroborate that. Maybe you got a bad one. Were you shooting with the kit lens 18-55mm or something?

 

I'm no photography expert but my buddy with a D10 sure is. He's had his for almost 2 years and is very pleased with it. He also has a really nice powershot...but to be honest the D10 just blows it away - not only in the resolution but in the color quality as well. If you've never messed with an SLR the compacts look great...so yeah the SLRs are best for the hobbyists. I've heard to stay away from the Digital Rebel though.

 

I'll probably be feeling megapixel envy when the Sony R1 ships.

 

Alot of people get get somewhat soft photos out of the dRebels and 20D's when they first make the switch to digital SLR. There is a pretty steep learning curve with using the new tech and sometimes the photos need to be massaged in post-processing on the computer afterward to realize their potential. Also, dSLR's really don't work terribly well in the automatic modes from what I have been told (though in all honesty my 20D has never been in anything but Av, Tv or M since I got it).

Their soft photos out of the box are frustrating if you are looking for instant gratification (and that can be helped along on the jpgs with some of the internal settings), but when everything comes together the images the dReb can create are great.

Or maybe you just had a copy that had a back focussing problem or something