18-200mm IS or 17-55mm USM IS?

[craigc_]

Sorry about the title. Meant to say 18-200mm IS or 17-85mm USM IS

So I am going to buy a Canon 60D tomorrow, and I have been offered two packages from a local camera store.

1) 60D + 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS for $1199
2) 60D + 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM for $1249

Keep in mind prices are in Canadian Dollars (CAD).

Both packages come with a Canon camera bag, HDMI cable, and extended warranty.

I've done some research online and it appears people have been having hardware problems with the 17-85mm. I am basically looking for a walk around lens and so that is why these two are my choices. I do have a 50mm 1.8 as well.

 

[Phrasikleia]

Neither of these lenses are optical champions, so you'd may as well get some versatility for your money. The 18-200 gives a broader range of focal lengths to experiment with and may be most valuable in helping you decide which end of this rather vast range most suits your style, enabling you to choose more wisely when you are able to make a real investment in a lens.

 

[mtbdudex]

I'm sorta suprised to see a brand new 60 body being paired with the "old" 17-85 (released 2004), why not the newer 15-85?
I've got the 15-85 and its a great walk around lens with my T1i.

from http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Model Weight Dimensions w/o Hood Filter Year
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens 13.6 oz (385g) 3.3 x 3.5" (84 x 90mm) 77mm 2004
Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens 20.3 oz (575g) 3.2 x 3.4" (81.6 x 87.5mm) 72mm 2009
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens 16.8 oz (475g) 3.3 x 3.8" (84 x 97mm) 77mm 2003
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens 22.8 oz (645g) 3.3 x 4.4" (83.5 x 110.6mm) 77mm 2006
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens 16.8 oz (475g) 3.1 x 3.6" (79 x 92mm) 67mm 2004
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens 7.1 oz (200g) 2.7 x 2.8" (68.5 x 70mm) 58mm 2007
Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens 16.1 oz (455g) 3.0 x 4.0" (75.4 x 101mm) 67mm 2009
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens 21 oz (595g) 3.1 x 4.0" (78.6 x 102mm) 72mm 2008
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens 33.5 oz (950g) 3.3 x 4.9" (83 x 124mm) 77mm 2002
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens 23.7 oz (670g) 3.3 x 4.2" (83.5 x 107mm) 77mm 2005
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens 19.1 oz (540g) 3.1 x 3.8" (78 x 97mm) 72mm 1998

 

[Keleko]

The 15-85mm IS USM is too expensive to include as a "kit" lens. That's likely the reason it isn't included in a package deal.

 

[fcortese]

Neither of these lenses are optical champions, so you'd may as well get some versatility for your money. The 18-200 gives a broader range of focal lengths to experiment with and may be most valuable in helping you decide which end of this rather vast range most suits your style, enabling you to choose more wisely when you are able to make a real investment in a lens.

+1 on this opine and advice. I have the 18-2000 with my T1i. It's a good walk-around lens for me and my usage. I have had it about a year and a half now. I wanted something that wasn't too expensive and I wanted to start to learn how to take good pictures. I am still in the learning end of the curve but I am now beginning to think about what my next lens will be.

 

[mtbdudex]

Saw this info on POTN, similiar thread there "60D and lens"...hopefully not tmi...

for the 18-135mm - you need f/5.6-f/8 through the zoom range for optimum IQ
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/462-canon_18135_3556is?start=1

The 17-85mm seems to outperform
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/402-canon_1785_456is_50d?start=1

maybe save for the 15-85mm if you can
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/465-canon_1585_3556is?start=1

all 3 lenses have some major barrel distortion at the widest ends.

Resolution wise - the 15-85mm wins, then 17-85mm

another option: 18-200mm - but it suffers from 100mm + so you need f/8
barrel distortion at 18mm - but the resolution at wide apertures looks respectful between 18-90mm
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/400-canon_18200_3556is?start=1

 

[craigc_]

Thanks for all the help. Decided to go with the 18-200mm. Being a kit lens, the image quality is better than expected. Pair this up with my 50mm 1.8 and I should be ok till my next lens- which I am hoping is a 10-22mm.