Equipment Why should I not buy a 40D? (Edit: Too late :-) )

Thanks guys! The Tamron 17-50 does indeed look interesting but it will have to wait. A while.

@supermonkey: This was actually something I forgot on the list: ISO noise. From what I've seen on dpreview I'll be in for a real treat with the 40D. I find my 350D is awfully noisy already at iso400.

 

Get a 1D mk1. (Or mk2 if you snap up a bargain)

Less money than a 40D, but tonnes more kudos.

I'm a 40D owner, but every time I see a 1D, I wish I'd gone for that instead.

 

Original 1D's are terrible in low light (ISO wise) in comparison and the IQ the 40D offers exceeds the 1D...the only thing the 1D beats the 40D in is build, IMO. A MKII would be a more fair comparison.

As for the 17-85...take my advice and return it/cancel it--spend your money on a lens thats worthwhile. Believe me, when I was looking into that lens I decided to go with the cheaper Sigma 17-70 and after using them both I was glad I had. Why spend more money on a slight upgrade over the kit than less money for more?

Here are a few user reviews for the Tamron 17-50 as well.

 

Expect about a stop worth of ISO improvement, in my experience so far with the 40D over the 400D (the 350D is probably about the same). Plus being able to select 1/3-stop ISO as well is a nice improvement. I don't worry about shooting ISO800 - a tiny noisy for my tastes truth be hold, but between some noise and making the shot, I'll take the noisy shot. 1600 is quite acceptable IMO unless you're looking 1:1, and even H(3200) you can clean up enough in post. I can post some samples if you'd like, though there are plenty at the review sites.

 

I can't for the life of me see why I should return it. I've now read through the first 5 pages of user reviews and the only negative the have in common is that the low end (17-22) is soft and there is some barrel distortion there. Otherwise than that Iøm hard pressed to see why I should hold off on it in such a hurry?
The Sigma 17-70 is the only contender. I like that the Sigma goes so low and that is has 20cm macro focus distance. That is awesome. And it goes lower aperture wise. But it doesn't go as far mm wise and there's no IS. You may scuff at IS but I shoot hand held 99.99% of the time so for me it comes in very handy. I'm very much looking forward to it for all-round. I'll give it a good spin and see if I end up disappointed or happy. The Sigma is cheap and the 17-85 is sell-able if that's where I end up.

Cheers for all the suggestions and feedback it was highly appreciated. Now I'll pick up what I ended up with and see what happens from there

 

First off, the corners suffer at every FL of the 17-85. Second, it has IS, yes, BUT the Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 17-70 both offer f/2.8 (Though the sigma has a variable aperture)...which is more versatile than IS any day of the week. If your shooting handheld and in low light IS comes second over aperture (IS does not stop motion...wide apertures do). The only good thing the 17-85 offers is is great FL and implementation of IS and USM...all of which are hindered by its slow, variable aperture, soft corners and heavy distortions. In the end it is a decent lens but for the money but there is glass out there that outperform it with cheaper price tags. You can take my advice with a grain of salt if you'd like...but perhaps this review will set it into concrete for you. Best quote of all:

"So at the end of the day the lens [17-85 IS] is a tad better than the cheapo EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 but it can't really compete with the new EF-S 18-55m f/3.5-5.6 IS..."

So the question now is...why spend $400 of a lens that an 18-55 IS kit beats for a fraction of the price?

 

According to my camera pusher there have been vast problems with front and back focusing on just exactly the Sigma 17-70 and the Tamron 17-50. They told me good copies were like 1 in 10. There has been no reports on the Sigma the last couple of months though so that's the one they would advice if I had to pick one of the two. They did also say that when you have a good sample of either those two lenses then they are indeed good.
Price wise the Sigma will cost me the same as getting the 17-85 as a kit so it's not just that simple.
Anyways although I'm a stubborn fart I'm going to check out both the 17-85 and the Sigma in the store and as they both hit the same price mark all in all I'll decide there and then letting low aperture weigh above IS. And the sweet sweet fact that the 17-70 has a 20cm min focus distance A great plus in my book
I'll report back when I return from the store later today.

@Vers - I think the link you posted to the review above is "broken"? It links to FM User reviews of the 17-50.

 

Hmmm...in MULTIPLE sites and reviews, I've not heard that of the Tamron. Never looked at the Sigma much, tbh, as it has some "problems" to it. But if you're looking for a straw poll, both Eric and I have purchased the 17-50 within the last 6 months and both of our lenses are fantastic. So 1 / 10 is a little questionable.

 

So! I tried the camera out with both lenses and we looked at the results and the Canon had some heavy CA even at 50mm f/5.6. The Sigma was completely clean and everything in consideration (Barrel Dist, ap. 4-5.6, softness, Sigma coming with lens hood, Sigma able to focus 70mm @20cm, Vers' strong opinion ) it was no hard choice.
AF, build quality and ergonomics seemed better with the 17-85 though. The pictures I shot at the store with the Sigma seemed flawless in regards to front/back focus, so it seems like I got a good copy despite of what the clerk claimed.
The Sigma was actually $35 on top of the kit deal but they were kind enough to discount that Hell not that it's a huge discount anyways but it's still all good not having to shell out extra.

So there I was. Downtown. Ready to run out and shoot with my new gear for as long as the pre-charge would last. I had some great spots that I wanted to visit now that I was nearby and the weather was (still is) beautiful. I biked right along (downtown is a 35 minute bike ride away.) and was looking for a quiet spot where I could sit down and quietly and undisturbed unpack and enjoy the gear and read the manual a little.
This was when I realized that I hadn't brought a memory card!! Doh!
So right now the battery is charging and I've strapped the 17-70 on the camera and I'm waiting anxiously to get out and shoot.

Thanks for reading and for your feedback

 

Your "camera pusher" is seemingly an unreliable source. I too own the Tamron 17-50 and there have been no issues with mine as of yet, and in general I have not heard of any QC issues with it. As for BQ, the 17-85 comes in second to both the 17-50 and 17-70...in fact, BQ just happens to be a major complaint from most about the 17-85. I can't make you choose one lens over another, however my advice is sound.

Here is the link I was referring to.

Edit: Just read you picked up the 17-70...