which lens is better

[zobova]

I got a Canon XTi rebel for a gift from my granpa but it didnt come with a lens. I'm thinking of buying one so I could start using it. Can someone please advise me which one is better: EF 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens or Canon EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM? Your expert opinion will be much appreciated. Thanks a lot!

[Sime]

I have not used the 70-300 but I have used the 17-85 ef-s for a couple of years and it worked just fine. I dare say, if you're a beginner, that you will get more use out of the 17-85 to start with.

The ef-s means that it will not work with a full frame camera (Canon 5D / 1D etc) but for now, should do you well.

I hope that helps.

Sime

[RolandAA]

Both lenses are good for the price and I wouldn't say either one is actually better than the other because they serve different functions. That said, if you are only going to buy one lens the EF-S 17-85MM IS has more versatile focal length for general use than the 70-300 which sits firmly in the telephoto range.

[RichardTaylor]

For general purpose shooting the 17-85.

[OsmosisStudios]

Those are totally different lenses. THe best bet you're gonna get to start out will likely be the 17-85, though I'd recommend the 15-85 instead if you can afford it.

[Raoul Isidro]

I assume the question was... "Which lens is better... for you, right now, in your situation, with your current assets."
The wide zoom is better for your situation.
If you got an extra bit of cash, add a 50mm 1.8 prime. You'll get a kick out of it...

[sdicks]

I looked up that lens and its 99.00.....I also have the xti and the lens that came with it doens't do a good job.....a lot of my photos have noise and low lighting, fringing from the lens etc. I was looking for a lens that would take great photos for macro and also for photos of people......not too expensive, so would that lens be a good all around one and what would be a good macro one under 300 or close to it..... Also when I'm ready to upgrade camera what is the next step up......thanks shirley

[Rehesan]

For "every day" photography and general purposes I would suggest you get the 17-85mm because the range of focal length.

The 70-300 is like its name states: telephoto, and is not suitable for general purposes and every day photo, just for those situations when you need to capture far subjetcts, or do some portraits, but not candid shots.

I would say, both lenses are complement of each other.

[Samanax]

Originally Posted by sdicks

I looked up that lens and its 99.00.....I also have the xti and the lens that came with it doens't do a good job.....a lot of my photos have noise and low lighting, fringing from the lens etc. I was looking for a lens that would take great photos for macro and also for photos of people......not too expensive, so would that lens be a good all around one and what would be a good macro one under 300 or close to it..... Also when I'm ready to upgrade camera what is the next step up......thanks shirley

You might want to start your own thread for this question. You'll bet more responses that way.

[inkista]

I'm with everybody else, the 17-85 IS USM is a good serviceable lens that's got a sale price right now, as it's being replaced by the 15-85 IS USM.

Another lens, you MAY want to consider is the EF-S 18-135 IS. It's not as nice as the 17-85, but can get you a little more reach, and is a little less expensive (it's a newer design than the 17-85, which was one of the first EF-S lenses Canon ever made).

Originally Posted by sdicks

I looked up that lens and its 99.00...

Doubt it. Have a feeling you confused the 75-300 III with the 70-300 IS USM. Two different lenses. The 70-300 IS USM is a much better lens.

..I also have the xti and the lens that came with it doens't do a good job....

Sure it's the lens, and not you? Noise in low lighting has to do with the iso and underexposure, not the lens. Fringing has to do with shooting things backlit or overexposing. It's more a matter of technique, really, than the glass.