Had the 17-85, generally speaking it was a dissapointment, especially after I had the Tamron 17-50 to compare it with. My advice would be to consider some third party alternatives, and think about what you're going to be shooting. I know for me, fast lenses have proven to be more valuable than a slightly bigger focal range, so things like the 17-50, the Sigma 18-50 (or whatever it is) and the Tammy 28-75 would be high up my list.
I like the comp on this one mate.another, but not convinced on compersition :
I love the photo; however, while I can appreciate the blown out whites on the right hand side, too me, it's a bit too drastic and looks rather odd having no shadows around his ear/that side of his face.
I found this guys work so awe inspiring, i mean, more than anyone i've encountered. These shots are simply magnificant, in all meanings of the term; when you look at a shot and think "how the f***", is really a sign of the talent behind the lense/lights.
What do you want to use it for? Sports/travel/portraits/everything? It's not a bad lens, but a little soft at 18mm and 200mm, and a little slow, but it'd be fine for travel photography if you want to go light. Otherwise i'd recommend getting specific lenses - as in a mid-zoom (18-70, 17-55, 15-85, etc) and a tele zoom (70-200, 80-200, 70-300VR, etc).
i mainly plan on shooting sport. but a bit of everything at some point or another,. i spent the past hour and a half looking at reviews allover the net of a range of lenses. looks like ill be buying the 18-70mm f3.5-4.5, the only draw back being a lack of VR. but i suppose that is not as much of an issue as if it was a tele.
