17-85-S USM or 17-40L?

Which is a better choice for an all around lens to work with the 20D?

This was discussed just THREE days ago here:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CCIl

 

You didn't search very hard before posting.

And last week:<br><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00C8pK"><i>"20D walk-around/travel lens - EF 17-40, EF 17-85 IS or Sigma 18-50/2.8 or..."</i></a>

Guys, guys. Calm down already.

 

Arnold has obviously been served everything in his life on a silver platter, why make him actually WORK all of a sudden? That's terrbible.

 

Shame on y'all!

Welcome to photo.net, Arnold! We are just like family. A dysfunctional one at times, but still like family! ;-P

Hey Arnold. I asked this question 3 days ago, and got a mixed bag of answers. Short answer is that there are many different opinions and in the end you will have to decide on your own. No doubt the 17-40L is the better quality. I like the range the 17-85 provides, but worry about the quality and the EF-S mount. In the end, I've decided to make no decision and think about it tonight with a fine bottle of scotch and maybe a cigar. Maybe a revelation will come to me. What I need is a 17-85 IS 'L' quality lens, but then I would probably not be able to afford it. Good luck.

Depending what all around work you're talking about...personally if I were street shooting and at parties the 17-85 efs works well for that because of the range...but if you're doing landscape and architexture...the 17-40 f4 will do better less barrel distortion, less ca, and less flaring...get this with a 50 f1.8 or macro and a 70-200 f4 you'll be good to go...

Most-asked question on the EOS Forum (of late, anyway).

 

What Patrick Tom said!

 

"What I need is a 17-85 IS 'L' quality lens, but then I would probably not be able to afford it." You might not be satisfied with it, either. A 17-85 L would have too large a zoom range (5x) to deliver the kind of optical quality found in the 17-40, for instance. Probably not as bad as the 10.7x 28-300L, but you get the idea. In this case, an "L" would probably deliver superior build quality, maybe a fixed length, but I doubt we'd be lusting over its optical performance. (I notice you didn't specify EF-S in your comment. Cheers!)

 

I own a 20D and a 17-40. I haven't spent a single moment wishing I had the 17-85 instead of -- or in addition to -- the 17-40. I'd buy a 28-135 IS, instead, but my 24-85 suits me just fine (unless/until Canon produces that 28-80 f/4L I want...)

Hello Arnold and welcome to the photonet family.<p>I'm using 20D with 3 Canon lenses: 17-40 f4L, 50 f1.8, and 70-200 f4L. I bought 24-85, used it in a year, and sold it with the DRebel. I then bought Tamron 28-75, used it in 8 months, and sold it. I tried 28-135 IS in a week a returned it. I don't want to try the 17-85 IS becasue I believe it is only the EF-S version of the 28-135 IS. I recently bought the 24-70 f2.8L after having desperately been waiting for the 24-70 f4L coming out.<p>My sufggestion is to get the 17-40 and 50. You will be happy with the 17-40. Furthermore, any of the following lenses will be fine as a walk arround lens: Canon 17-40 & 50, 24-85, 28-135, Tamron 28-75, Sigma 24-70. I would say the Canon 17-85 is very nice if you can get it at the same price as the 28-135. $600 is a little too high.

"17-40 f4L, 50 f1.8, and 70-200 f4L."

 

The classic kit. hard to beat. Only lacks the 24-70/4L-IS and all would be right with the world.

Jim- And give the 70-200 F4L some IS too. Funnily enough, I have the 17-40/50/70-200 F4 combo now. I have the 300 F4L IS as well, so just need the 500 F4L IS to finish the set...

If the emphasis is on ALL ROUND then the 17-85 is surely a better choice. It has a much wider zoom range, and it has IS. If you plan to have 2-3 lenses then you may want to start with the 17-40 and expand the range according to the above suggestions, but it is not an "all round" lens by most definition. I seem to be the only one around here cheering for the 17-85 EF-S! A nice combination for the 20D IMHO is 10-22, 24-70, and 70-200, plus a long prime later on, but you better check out the total weight of this setup first.

actually Jim, what the triplett combo needs is a 10-15L f/4 to round it off........IMHO.........for $600 (or less) of course ;o)

There are several glaring gaps in the Canon lens line-up. The one that Isaac mentioned, a 70~200/4L IS, has been commented on repeatedly. Some months ago several contributors discussed options to bridge the gap between 40 and 70, or thereabouts, and concluded that whereas 24~70/4L was one way to go, it was not the only, and perhaps not for some of us the best, choice. A 35~105/4L IS, sealed, fixed length, reasonably compact and light, good close-up capability, 58mm filter thread would have many attractions on both full-frame and 1.6-factor, linking to the 17~40 at the short end and to 100~? lenses at the long end, like the 100~400 or a 70~200x1.4. It is a relatively unambitious specification so a very high level of optical quality should be achievable.

Absolutely agree with you about the 70-200/4L IS. If Canon made one, I'd put my 70-200/4L up for sale today, and buy one of those in a heartbeat.

 

The 35~105/4L IS you describe is certainly one way to go, but I think it would be useful on a full-frame (or even 1.3x) body than on 1.6x. The "40-70 gap" is covered all right, but on 1.6x, I'm not so sure this is an optimum focal length range.

 

My dilemma (overstatement) is that on my 20D, I want an f/4L zoom lens that will fill this 40-70 gap, provide wider coverage than 35mm, and still provide *overlap* with the 70-200. From what I've read, zoom lenses frequently don't cover the actual range specified; for example, a 70-200 might in reality be 75-190 or so, so a lens that "just" goes to 70mm on the long end isn't long enough.

 

There are those who will argue (rightfully so) that a few mm of FL coverage is meaningless; just a couple of footsteps forward or back, so maybe all this (focal range lust) is overkill. But for me, the ideal range for this "standard f/4L zoom" would be 28-80.

 

I don't care if it has IS or not, and the filter thread size is immaterial to me. If the form factor and weight specs fell between those of the 17-40 and 70-200/4, I'd be satisfied. Otherwise, I agree with your specifications completely.

 

Not that anyone at Canon is listening...

Know what I want? Interchangable lens hoods. :)

Tics me off to go on a trip toteing around 4-5 lens hoods.

 

I don't care too much about covering the full range of lenses. I am content with my current 40-70 gap. Although. . .if I were to fill it. . .I would insist upon IS. And I am worried that the 28-135/IS would not meet my expections on optical performance.

I opted and finally got a 17-40L sharp copy as well. <br>

a friend that is an Optics engineer told me once that when<br>

you have a zoom that spans across the 50mm range it is very<br>

difficult to make, he had some very good reasons that were beyond<br>

my ken, but it did make sense. The 24-70L is a pricy lens but<br>

that is the cost I suppose to get it right. He told me that when<br>

a lens spans across the 50mm point there are compromises in quality<br> but then he was a very picky fellow!<br>

G2

Man I could not agree more. And... they can make them a little more scratch resistant while they are at it. For heaven sake these plastic cups are 40 bucks!

I like my new 17-40L on my 20D, but have found that at the wide angle, autofocus is usually off somewhat. I fix this by zooming in first, autofocusing, then zoom back out and snap the picture. The owner manual for the lens says not to zoom after focusing since it can change the focus. I don't remember this being a problem for my 28-105 I no longer have. Is this normal?