17-85 EF-S IS USM kit lens replacement or

[AdamK]

Looking at replacing my 40D kit lens with the 17-55 EF-S IS USM f2.8, or supplementing the kit lens with the 70-200L IS USM.
my query is, will I notice a significant improvement with the 17-55, or should I keep the kit lens and supplement it with the 70-200L?
I am taking the family to Europe end of the month and want to make the purchase beforehand.
Advice appreciated.

[koputai]

Hmm, tough question.

I've had both those lenses, and still have the 17-55 EF-S IS 2.8

The 17-55 is a fantastic lens, very versatile, but appreciably heavier than the kit lens.

The 70-200L IS is also fantastic, probably awesome. I replaced mine with the 70-300L IS, and am even more happy with this baby.

It really comes down to what you intend to photograph. If people, scenery, and buildings, then go the 17-55. If animals, sport, transport
etc, then go the 70-200. I've been on trips where I never used the longer lens, and conversly, other trips where the long lens never left
the camera.

Sorry, I don't think I've helped.

Cheers,
Jason.

[Mary Anne]

I have both lenses, as your walk around lens I would get the 17-55mm its a great fast lens.
When I went OS I took three lenses those two plus the 1.4 extender and the Tamron 90mm macro.
Which one did I use the most the Macro, why because I love flowers about 7000 out of the 11,600 photos I took were with that lens.
The rest mostly with the walk around lens, I did not use my 70-200 very much only for shooting birds and ships in the harbour.

So it all depends on what you want to shoot..

[AdamK]

Thanks Jason and Mary Anne for your responses. I guess the crux of my decision will be based on whether the 17-55 will be a significant improvement on my 17-85? If it is only going to be a marginal improvement I should probably keep the kit lens and get the 70-200.
To date my DSLR photography has been mostly of family occasions mostly portrait style. I'd love to do some more landscape and Architecture photography (photography of my work as I am a builder), but I'd also like to be doing more candid portrait stuff and wildlife too so the 70-200 would come in handy.
So is the 17-55 that much better than the 17-85, or should I be looking at supplementing the kit lens with the telephoto and something wider?

[Tannin]

Your current normal lens is OK. Not fantastic, but OK. It works.

Your current long lens is ... well, it isn't! You don't have one. It doesn't work at all.

When you look at it that that, the answer seems clear.

[William W]

I guess the crux of my decision will be based onwhether the 17-55 will be a significant improvement on my17-85? If it is only going to be a marginal improvement I should probably keep the kit lens and get the 70-200.
To date my DSLR photography has been mostly of family occasions mostly portrait style. I'd love to do some more landscape and Architecture photography(photography of my work as I am a builder), but I'd also like to be doing more candid portrait stuff and wildlife too so the 70-200 would come in handy.

The crux of your question requires DEFINING what “significant improvement”means for you.
For me, “Family Occasions” and “More Candid Portraiture” and being able tocapture at F/2.8 from 17mm to 55mm would alone be “a significant improvement”.

In addition, there would be a general Image Quality improvement; also (for me) not having a Varying Maximum Aperture, would be “a significant improvement”.

If you replace the kit lens with the 17 to 55, then “supplementing” the kit has to be the trade off – BUT -

“Candid Portrait” does not to me definitively mean a 70 to 200 lens on an APS-C camera.
“Sniping Portraiture” better fits that – and if that is what you want; then I think you need to choose how much of that do you want to do, as 85mm is quite a reasonable telephoto lens, on a APS-C Camera, for Portrait Images, (if you keep the 17 to 85 - if you sell it then 55mm is nit an impossible telephoto length for sniping portraiture.)

“Wildlife” is a broad vista – does that mean birds, for example, then 200mmreach will likely not be long enough.

A Lens Kit comprising two zooms which has a broad FL compass would requires the addition of the 70 to 200: I agree that is without thinking too long and hard about it – I agree also that would be a “significant improvement” – but the crux of the choice still comes back to your definition of what EXACTLY you want to significantly improve and defining exactly what type of images you want to make; but are limited making, at the moment.

WW

[Old Skool]

You will miss the extra length with your 17-85 by going to a 17-55. Maybe look at the 15-85 which is a step better than your kit lens and then get a 70-200 or even the 55-250 - The 55-250 is an amazing lens for the price and really small and light which is ideal for travelling.

[AdamK]

Dont tell the wife.
Im getting the 70-200L is usm II and on verge of the 17-55 too.
I figure a European holiday with wife and three kids may not happen again while they are at this golden age. I want to make sure the memories are captured at a quality that can be appreciated in years to come.

[koputai]

Adam, you will love them both. The lenses that is!

Cheers,
Jason.