17-85 vs 17-40 looking for opinions

[citizensmith]

So this has been talked about some in previous posts but I'm still

undecided.

 

I've currently got a 18-55, 24, 24-85 and 28-105 (the good one)

sitting in my bag. I'm thinking of either getting a 17-40 (and

possibly keeping the 24-85) or a 17-85 (and definitely keeping the

24). FWIW I've also got a 85 and a 70-200 and those stay. I'm using

a 300D.

 

What I'd like is a decent wide lens to pair with the 70-200, and often

act as a single lens walkaround. I'd have no problem with the 17-40

if it wasn't for the somewhat limited range (27-64), large size, and

apparently cumbersome hood. I'd have no problem with the 17-85 if it

wasn't for the significant number of reviews complaining about

softness, distortion and CA when wide and open.

 

Some specifics I'd love to hear opinions on are...

 

17-40, how often to people find themselves running into the long end

of the range? How cumbersome to people find it, particularly with the

hood mounted? Do people use it without feeling the need to carry

other lenses?

 

17-85, optically how does it compare to lenses like the 28-105 and

24-85 as these are what I'm used to using as normal zooms. Optically,

how much of an improvement over the 18-55 is it?

 

I realize the 17-85 is bit expensive, but as I'll be selling some

stuff to help pay for either lens the comparative costs I'm fine with.

I also have no problem with EF-S lenses as I don't see a larger

sensor in my near future. Lastly, no thanks, don't want a 50 f/1.8

:) Had one and never used it.

 

Thanks for your input

[bestactionshots]

IMO 17-40L is best price/performance WA L lens. You can look at my samples here<br>

<a href="http://www.softechie.com/Photos/Samples/Canon1740Lens"><img src="http://www.softechie.com/Photos/Samples/Canon1740Lens/slides/Canon1740Sample_36.jpg"></a><br>

<a href="http://www.softechie.com/Photos/Samples/Canon1740Lens"><img src="http://www.softechie.com/Photos/Samples/Canon1740Lens/slides/Canon1740Sample_23.jpg"></a><br>

[gerry_szarek]

FYI, I use the 17-40 w/o the hood on a 10D, no problem with flare. I would recomment this lens, the tamron 28-75, and 70-200F4 as a good all around kit. For low light I definitely recomment the 50F1.4, you may want to consider the 35/28 F2's out there. I would trash the 28-105 in favor of the tamron ditto the 24-85, keep the 24 and the 18-55 (just in case you sell the 300D).

[stephend]

They're both optically significantly better than the 18-55 -- even I can tell the difference! Of the two, the L glass is arguably better.

 

I picked the 17-85 over the 17-40. For my standard of photography, the difference in image quality wasn't significant but the extra range and the image stabalizer was (it's my "travelling" lens).

 

--> Stephen

[damian_tinsley]

You have so much glass already. Why not get some that you know will be good. Another consideration you haven't mentioned is that the build quality of the 17-40 makes it a joy to use - something that could hardly be said of the 18-55. It is heavier, but balances nicely on the 10D/20D body. And you can't put it in your pocket, no matter what lens you have attached. Get it and you are unlikely to regret it.

[jon_austin]

Marcus:

 

In this range, I have the 17-40, the 24-85 and the 50 Compact Macro. I bought all these lenses when I was still using a 10D, but as a 20D user now, I wouldn't think of buying the 17-85 but then, I'm philosphically opposed to EF-S lenses (I'm also a Canon-lens-only buyer). But even if the 17-85 wasn't EF-S only, I wouldn't buy it because the reviews aren't that great (it seems to fare worse than the 24-85, from what I've read), and the 5x zoom range is excessive to me (I prefer 3x or less).

 

I use the 17-40 indoors (without the hood) all the time. When the light gets low and I don't want to use flash, I switch to the 50CM (and back up.) I've thought about a 24- or 35mm prime, but I just haven't had much need yet.

 

Outside, I use the 17-40 for landscape (with the hood) and the 24-85 for walking around / street photography-type purposes. I wish Canon made an f/4L version of the 24-85, but that's another story (and a shopworn rant of mine).

 

I don't think the 17-40's hood is cumbersome to use (store, yes; use, no). As long as you're using it on a 1.6x sensor, you can replace its stock hood with the one for one of the Canon 24mm lenses, although I don't recall which one (you could probably find out by doing a search here).

 

Despite their smaller image circles, I don't expect the price of EF-S lenses to drop much, unless Canon sells a WHOLE BUNCH of dRebels, 20Ds and their successors, and the buyers jump on the EF-S bandwagon in a big way. They should cost less to produce, but if the production volumes are low, it'll take longer to recoup the R&D costs. Compare that to the price of the 1-1/2 year-old 17-40, which debuted at $800 (I bought mine for $770 in July 2003), and which now goes for about $675.

[neilb]

i have the 17-40 on my body 80-90% of the time... but that's jusat because of my style. I

don't run into the long end too often, but that's because i tend to shoot wide. You need to

get to know your style, and determine whether 40mm is too short for the long end.

 

Also, I only use the hood when i'm out shooting landscapes (and it doesn't help much

anyway). I leave it at home when i'm street shooting and never have a problem. My hunch

is that the hood it comes with is more useful on full-frame bodies.

[jon_austin]

<I>"My hunch is that the hood [the 17-40] comes with is more useful on full-frame bodies."</I><P><P>

 

Optically, I agree completely. But for me, the hood provides valuable physical protection, as well. (Or at least, the promise of same; I'm very careful with my gear, but I like the added margin of safety).

[darklights]

I'd go with the 17-40 also. As for the EF-S 18-55mm, IMHO it's a decent lens even in low light, as shown<div></div>

[citizensmith]

Thanks for the feedback. It looks like as much as I'll be continually wondering what the extra 40-85 range and IS would be like the 17-40 is the way to go. Selling the 18-55, 24, and 28-105 (yes I do currently have too much glass) will help pay for it and lighten my load. If the 17-40 shows to have the same optical snap as my 85 and 70-200 I think it'll be a well used lens.

 

Any other comments would still be appreciated.

[Greg M]

Go with the 17-40 and buy the hood made for the 24mm f1.4L to use with it. It works perfectly with the 17-40 when mated to a 1.6 crop body and it's MUCH slimmer and deeper, so it protects the front element better with no image cutoff. I used it now with both my Digital Rebel and 10D. It even mounts backwards on the lens for storage!

[sjg]

I have the 17-85 on a 20D and am very happy with it.<p>

I did a brief compare with the 17-40 (borrowed from friend), and

while it is better built and better at 17mm from about 24mm the

difference is hard to tell.<p>

Which is better depends on what you shoot. I did a quick survey

of the 600+ pics I've taken with the 20d (and kept ;-)<br>

238 were in the 17-40 range<br>

258 were in the 41-60 range<br>

201 were in the 61-85 range<br>

and 180 of them were taken at < 1/30s (88 < 1/10s)<br>

152 of the above were taken with 50/1.4<p>

 

So for <em>me</em> the extra range of the 17-85 and the IS are

major pro's. Your needs could well be different. If the 17-40

range works for you, the 17-40L is hard to beat.<p>

 

--sjg

[jim_larson1]

Hmmm. Full glass collection.

 

The 17-85/IS promises no optical advantages over your current lenses. And is expensive.

 

The classic prosumer zooms are the 24-85, 28-105, and the 28-135/IS. Of these three, the 28-135 has the best reputation but all three are similar in optical quality. The 17-85/EF is built similar to the 28-135, and from what I have read to date, the optical quality is similar to the 28-135, with the 28-135 being slightly superior.

 

As for the 17-40/4L: Optics are a step (or two) above these lenses. I have one. I like it :)

 

The hood: honestly, it is too awkward to get in my bag. Lens flare is common enough, (given the wide angle it is hard to keep the sun out), but I find it easy enough to block with a well placed hand. :)

 

Why not consider the 28-135/IS? It is a full $175 cheaper than the 17-85/IS. With this lens, I would keep the 18-55 for wide angle and the 24/2.8 for wide open work. Then, I would dump the 24-85 and 28-105.

 

Another option would be to get the 17-40/4L. With this lens, I would dump the 18-55, 28-105, and possibly the 24/2.8. I would keep the 24-85 for mid range work.

 

I currently shoot the 17-40/4L, 50/1.8, and 70-200/4L. I also have the 35/2 and 24/2.8. Once every few months I feel the need for a zoom in the 40-70 range. But it passes -> if they came out with a 24-70/4L I would buy one tomorrow.

 

I may someday pick up the 28-135/IS to get an IS lens in my collection -> but I am really waiting for 100-400/L-IS that is NOT a push pull. (Sorry, the 70-300/DO-IS does not have good enough image quality for the price)

[mark_ryan2]

Marcus,

 

Just a thought, since you are glass rich, how about a nice film EOS body to keep a lens happy? A nice A2, 620, or 630? For the money you'll "lose"/burn on selling a lens, you can have a film body as a back-up. On Ebay it seems like 630s go for a little over $100, A2s for $200.

 

Just a thought!

[lotsawa]

If you get the 17-40/4L, you might still keep the kit lens since it is so small and light in comparison, and you won't get a lot of money for it anyway. The on-camera flash is partially blocked by the 17-40, so you might have to carry an external flash in addition. That's probably enough reason to keep the kit lens as a small and light p&s solution (don't know if the 17-85 blocks the flash) if you need that.

 

From what I've read the 17-85 is optically not better than Sigma's 18-125/3.5-5.6, which seems to be a decent walk around p&s lens at least on the same level as the kit lens, but with the longer zoom range. It could replace your kit lens and maybe your other consumer zooms, too (of course it lacks USM). And there will still be some money left to get a fast prime for low light shots (like the 20/2.8 USM). I've read in a reasonable review that the Sigma is basically a 28-200 full-frame superzoom (generally I don't like superzooms) to which a rear lens is added that reduces the image circle to the APS-C size, thus making the image sharper too. The result is a resolution that comes near to the resolution of the 300D's sensor (about 60 lp/mm instead of 40 lp/mm of the 28-200). That's of course still miles away from small p&s digicams in terms of noise. Some say it's difficult to shoot at a higher level than 50 lp/mm anyway in less than optimal conditions (tripod etc.).

 

That would give you a decent long range zoom as a p&s lens and a couple of good quality (light) primes for special purposes. The 17-40/4L will only add some wide angle to normal range for you, at a high level though. Only you can decide what is more important for you.

 

The 17-85 is probably not better (some say it's even worse) than your kit lens optically, but adds IS and USM and the longer range. This lens seems to be an interesting compromise, not more and not less, and at a somewhat high price. But we can't have all!

 

I think the first you could get rid of is either the 24-85 or the 28-105. Usually the 24-85 sells a little bit higher on ebay (maybe nearly 200$ instead of 135$?).

 

Then you could decide if you want the 17-40. If so, you might keep the kit lens. You can keep the 24mm prime if you'll need a small and fast 'standard' lens on your camera. Or you can sell it if you don't need that because optically it is replaced by the 17-40. You could combine the 17-40 with your 28-105 and your other lenses. Or you don't care about the 40-70 gap (or get a 50/1.8 instead).

 

If you decide for a longer range zoom (like the Sigma or the 17-85) you don't need the kit lens and your 2 consumer zooms, but you could keep your 24mm prime and maybe add one or two primes (20mm, 50mm).

 

If you want to stay compatible with full frame, then of course your line of thinking is different.

 

Just some thoughts. If you don't want to decide don't worry and be happy with what you have!

[erik_pettersson]

I recently bought a 17-85 for my 20d to replace the 18-55. Tried it for a few days and returned it. Sharpness was worse in the corners than the kit lens, even stopped down. Having paid around $600, I was not happy. I did not expect it to surpass the kit lens, but I did not expect it to perform worse. But ring usm and IS was great. Having read other reports, it is possible that I got a lemon.

 

Based on my experience, I suggest you get the 17-40.

[citizensmith]

FWIW I think I've made my decision.

 

I'm going to get my hands on a 17-85 to check personally the quality as it sounds very variable. If I get one I like and keep it I'll pick up (as soon as I can afford it) a 20 f/2.8. This way I have a high quality, reasonably wide lens, and a walk-around lens. And I'm over budget. Ah well.

 

OK so that relies on me finding a 17-85 I like, and then finding the extra cash for the 20, but clearing the 4 'wide' lenses out my bag will certainly help with that. Lets see if I end up selling it and switching to the 17-40 6 months down the line. :)

 

Thanks for everybodies thoughts on this.

[wilfred_m_rand]

There's a built-in softness to an IS lens, so it will depend on what you're looking for. All around, the 17-85 IS is the ultimate utility for dynamic situations where there's a premium on "shoot first, check the settings later." Think vacations, family events, big occcasions, hiking. For pj toughness or absolute quality, by which I mean publication grade images or large prints for a gallery show in Manhattan, you'll be more satisfied with a 17-40 or 16-35. At 8x10, though, it would be hard to spot the differences. If you know your needs can make a choice without regrets.