EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Vs. EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

[illusions photo art studio]

I don't think this comparison has been made, do anyone own this two

lenses and can make an illustrated side by side comparison of The

duo?

 

I've been wondering since both of them are almost the same price

(around $600) they both are 17mm (if you are looking for something

wide) one of them is an "L" lens but the other one gives you the

benefit of an "IS" system

 

The only thing remaining is to see which one is optically better

(which I presume is going to be the "L" of course) but let the

comparison speak for it self.<div></div>

[patrick tom]

I'm interested in the same two lenses and their comparisons as well...I will be eagerly viewing the results...but if one had the means it seems one could actually justify both...the 17-85 seems to

be a good everyday lens especially in lowlight( I just shot in lowlight conditions which I could have used that IS...) sometimes you don't want to have to open the lens up and get shallow dov...and a tripod is just not free enough...basically the IS gives you more

spontaneous creative options...I didn't realize this until I tried

to shoot without a tripod at dawn in overcast with a 70-200 f4 l lens

I had to shoot at 1600 iso...we'll see when I print the images...I can see a 70-200 f2.8 IS in my future...the 17-40 f4 could be used mostly for landscape when the extra sharpness can really be used...I don't think the 17-40 will work as an everyday lens...is 40mm long enough for you...I hope I added something to your choosing...good

luck...

[illusions photo art studio]

I am not an everyday shooter, and I don't live from taking pictures, so I don't need the sturdiness or roughness of an "L" lens to take the punishment, What I'm really looking is for optical quality between this two.

 

Giving the fact that the price is almost the same for both, then I could afford either two.

 

Points to consider:

 

1: Optics

2: EF-"S" that lens will only fit the 300D or the 20D (so far)

unless I do the <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/efs-10d.html">Bob Atkin's hacksaw job</a>

3: The covered range advantage of 85 vs 40

4: Image Stabilizer

5: Build to last ("L")

[damian_tinsley]

Luis, it seems to me like you have missed out a couple of points: 6. Ability to actually get a 17mm perspective (on a film body or a 1ds) 7. Forward compatability with whatever the next EOS body offering is, irrespective of sensor size 8. Pose factor of the L glass (being the least important);-)

 

Personally the D20 is my first DSLR, and as I keep my lenses for a long time, the possible fit difficulties with my next boody would keep me away from the EF-S system. Also it just seems from what I have read here that we might expect optics to be on a par with the 28-135 which retails for a lot less. That kind of thing annoys me - is the price of the 17-85IS going to drop in the forseeable future? I know there are people out there who will say buy for the moment, it's Christmas - but I work hard for my money and like to feel I'm getting value. Speaking of value, I guess the 17-40 will hold it better than the 17-85IS over time.

 

That said, the IS and the extra 45mm reach would be nice... I reckon they are two different animals completely and whilst a comparison would be nice, your needs would probably make up your mind rather than a side-by-side test.

[casey mcallister]

"Pose factor of the L glass (being the least important);-)"

 

Your damn right about that!

 

Trust me when I say 1 in 1000 people care or even know about 'L' glass.

 

But, I bet your spine knows all about it, and it''s not happy!

 

I own the 17-85, in addition the the 'sweet' NON 'L primes'

 

It blow the doors off the 17-40 cause the IS. It's reasonably sharp stopped all the way down. MUCH BETTER LENSE!

 

The only 'L' glass WORTH the money are the expensive tele's unless your a combat PJ bound for Bagdaddy.

[jim_larson1]

I have not seen anyone seriously compare the 17-40/4L to the 17-85/IS -> although given the prices, such a comparison would be interesting.

 

I have heard alot of people compare the 17-85/IS to the 28-135/IS ($420), and the claim is that the lenses are basically similar - with perhaps the edge going to the 28-135.

 

People have compared the 17-40/4L to the 16-35/2.8L ($1300). And most say the lenses are comparable: http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml.

 

So: for $600, do you want a lens that compares well to a $420 lens? Or do you want one that compares well to a $1300 lens?

 

I own a 17-40/4L. I do use the 17-40 as a walk around lens. If I am shooting indoors this lens is plenty long enough. I have a 50/1.8, and I find that this lens is generally TOO LONG for indoor work.

 

Now, if I am outdoors. . usually the 50 and 17-40/4L are adequate. If the the 50 is too short. . then I generally find that what I really want is my telephoto. . .usually set to something more than 85!

 

As for lack of IS: hmmm. Tough one. IS is of course nice. In the 17-50 range, it would allow you to take shots down to what. . 1/5 second? Real good for still life. Real bad for people. I generally have not been bothered by lack of IS. If ISO 800 at 1/30 doesn't get it. . I probably need want to use a flash anyway.

 

Which to buy? Tough one. For me, I own a 10D so the choice was obvious. I also shoot film, as does my other half. The 17-40/4L is SUPERB on film bodies (while the 17-85 won't fit!). BUT if you only have one lens. . a 40 would leave you short. What other lenses do you plan on getting?

 

My recommendation: The cheap short zooms are better than the cheap long zooms. For a 20D with $800 I would get: 18-55/EF-S, 50/1.8 and 70-200/4L. Down the road, I would replace the 18-55.

 

Another choice would be 17-85/IS with 75-300. But all flavors of the 75-300 are really soft beyond 200mm. I prefer cropped images from my 70-200/4L to non-cropped images from my 75-300.

[illusions photo art studio]

Actually I own an 18-55mm ef-s, 50mm 1.8, and a 28-135mm USM "IS", The 70-200mm 2.8 "IS" is in my wishlist.

The 28-135 is my walk-around lens, but due to the 1.6 crop factor of my d300 28mm sometimes is not wide enough and my 18-55mm it's not really a great performer so I will need to buy some nice glass for the wide end.

and I will have two options:

 

1. Sell my 28-135mm "IS" and the 18-55mm and to buy the 17-85mm "IS" to use as my walk-around lens and buy the 70-200mm 2.8 IS. With this set up there is almost no overlaping and I will be covered with the "IS" from 17mm to 200mm.

 

2. Or keep my 28-135mm "IS" as my walk-around lens and sell my 18-55mm to buy an 17-40mm L and also buy the 70-200mm 2.8 "IS" (this is in case that the 17-85mm won't give an optical quality enough to make me change it for the 17-40mm L and my 28-135mm)

[citizensmith1664875108]

I've been asking myself the same question as I'm pretty much in the same boat. I think WCMs comment that the 17-85 is 'MUCH BETTER LENSE' (That should be lens by the way dude) is pretty far off. You don't have to read many reviews to figure out the 17-40 knocks the pants of the 17-85 when it comes to optics.

 

The 17-40 gets compared to the 16-35 and very favorably, the only difference being the speed. The 17-40 has even been showed to offer serious competition for primes such as the 24 f/2.8

 

The 17-85 gets compared to the 28-135 and falls a little behind, being slower and having some problems with softness and chromatic aberations at the wide end of its range.

 

I think Jim Larson's point was spot on. Do you want a lens that compares well to a $1300 lens (the 17-40 and 16-35) or one that compares about even with a $420 lens (the 17-85 and 28-135). For me the answer would be obvious if it wasn't for the much improved range of the 17-85. I'm often tending to shoot longer rather than wide so I'm trying to figure out if what you loose in optics is made up for by what you gain in zoom range. At the moment I have an 18-55, 24, 24-85 and a 28-105 in the 'wide' end. Boy would it be great to get rid of some (or all) of those in favour of one lens.

[jim_larson1]

You already have the 28-135/IS? Hmmm. Then I would definately pass on the 17-85/IS. In your case. . I would go for the 70-200/2.8L-IS first.

 

Be warned. This is a MONSTER lens. :)

 

As for swapping a 28-135 AND a 18-55 for a 17-85. . NO WAY! You still have to chip in money since you are selling your lenses used! If money was no object, I would just ditch the 18-55 and buy a 17-40/4L. Then your lens set would be 17-40/4L, 28-135, and a long gun. I would not hesitate to walk around with that kit.

[phyrpowr]

If you do get the 17-85 IS, get it on approval.

 

I tried two, and both were unacceptably soft at the edges and corners, even stopped down, more so than the 10-22 EF-S I got. No comparison to my 28-135 IS, which is razor sharp corner to corner

[david_kieltyka]

My current two-zoom outfit consists of the 17-40mm and 70-300mm DO. I used this pair

with a 20D for 80% of the photos I took during a recent 10-day stay in NYC. I'm more than

happy with the results. But I'm considering replacing the 17-40mm with the 17-85mm. In

NYC I did a lot of shooting in the 20-85mm range, which meant swapping lenses

frequently. The 17-85mm would've handled all those shots. A pro friend who field-tested

the lens earlier this year was impressed, though he hasn't bought one for himself since he

doesn't own an EF-S mount camera.

 

One thing I enjoyed on my trip was taking long-ish exposures of people as they walked by

with the DO lens at 70mm. The IS did a great job of steadying the lens, giving me photos

with blurred, moving people against a tack sharp background. I like this look but would

prefer using shorter focal lengths. The 17-85mm would work out well, I think, in the 24

-50mm range.

 

-Dave-

[illusions photo art studio]

This is what I'm trying to find out, the Optics on this lens, If someone can post some examples it would be great.

[andrew_ito]

Try checking this for reviews on the lens: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

showgallery.php?cat=27

 

The Fred Miranda reviews section has some good information about various lenses.

[citizensmith1664875108]

Here were my other thoughts.

 

The 17-40 comes with a lens hood, the 17-85 doesn't and its a $30 extra.

 

The 17-85 uses 67mm filters same as the 70-200 f/4 L (and I already own some because of that) while the 17-40 uses more expensive 77mm.

 

The 17-85 is of course EF-S so anyone planning on picking up a 1DMk2 or hanging on to the lens for 5 years may find they'll have a body that can't use it. Not an issue for me though.

 

The 17-40 is better built, weather sealed, and has better focus and zoom action.

 

The 17-85 is slightly shorter (0.2") narrower (0.2") and lighter (1.4oz) so is a bit less imposing and easier on the shoulder.

 

The 17-40 lets you use drop-in filters, I guess a bonus if you use them already.

 

The 17-40 close focuses to 11 inches, the 17-85 to 14 inches.

 

The IS on the 17-85 is listed as giving a three stop advantage which I think would make it the latest IS technology. At least they didn't skimp there.

 

I guess another issue is if I get the 17-40 I'll have no issue getting it from B&H where I normally get stuff. If I get the 17-85 I'll probably want to get it locally so I can test it as there seems to be some sample variation with that lens. Getting it locally means a 7.75% tax and higher prices. After adding in tax or shipping, and other stuff like hoods or filters I'd probably spend around $700 on either lens.

 

I'd love the extra range and IS, but I refuse to spend $700 on anything with questionable optics. So, as the original post said, anyone actually doing a direct comparison would be well received.

[illusions photo art studio]

Hi andrew, I did that last nigth and I did find something, one simple picture of the 17-85mm comparing with the 18-55mm kit lens, trully not a fair comparison... oviously, the 18-55mm is not a competitor in this league.

 

I'll just going to have to wait until someone post a 17-85mm vs 17-40mm

[erick_kyogoku]

I find this to be an interesting discussion and look forward to further input. I have a D10,

28-135 IS, 100-300, 28/1.8, 50/1.4, and 85/1.8. I was considering selling the D10 to

buy a D20 and the 17-85 IS, but now it makes more sense to buy the 17-40 and hold out

for the D30. (I'm still joyously pleased with the D10 despite having D20 envy) My

question, to which most responses would have to be conjecture, is: why doesn't Canon,

which makes "Image Stabilizing" lenses in telephoto ranges of their "L" line, not build "IS"

into their wide zoom "L" lenses while including it into their 17-85 and 28-135? I have

used IS with success and would be sad to give it up. I'd appreciate a Canon L lens in the

17-85 range with "IS" -- wouldn't that be the perfect walking about lens? Any speculation

on why L lenses lack the "IS" feature on the wide end? (Sure the IS's advantages are

magnified at telephoto lengths, but it's still advantageous at 17 or 28mm) Luis, for what

it's worth, since you

already have the 28-135 end covered with a really nice lens, why not sell the 18-55mm

and replace it with the 17-40L and live happily ever after?

[illusions photo art studio]

I've been thinking that but then I'll have 4 lenses in my bag:

17-40L, 28-135IS, 50mm 1.8 and 70-200L,

 

Instead of only 3:

17-85IS 50mm 1.8 and 70-200L with practicly no overlaping.

 

But despite all that I think that I would stick to option #1

[duh]

I'm also looking forward to a side by side comparison of the 17-85 and 17-40L. If you buy a 20D you can get the EF-S 17-85 as part of a kit for about $500, which sounds attractive. I currently own a 300D with the 18-55 kit lens (which is not all that good); a 28-135 and a 100-400L. So I'm looking for a better quality lens than the 18-55 to fulfil my "wide" needs. As I want to upgrade to the 20D anyway, buying the 17-85 as part of the kit should enable me to cover my needs with 2 lenses (the second one being the 100-400), which will be nice, light and convenient. However, if the 17-85 is not so good form a quality perspective I would rather retain the 28-135 and add the 17-40L.

 

Won't someone send Bob a few examples so he can do one of his hands-on tests? ;-)

[jim_larson1]

With a 28-135 already in someone's hands. . .I just would feel no need to buy a 17-85/EF-S => too much overlap with the 28-135 with NO REAL IMPROVEMENT in quality.

 

I would strongly consider the 10-22/EF-S or the 17-40/4L.

[duh]

Yes, the 10-22 is also a possibility. Do you know of any full reviews on that one - have not seen any yet.

[xian_xu]

Ok, guys, I had both lens and I did some rough comparison. I bought 17-85mm for everyday use and later somehow began to worship so called L lens. Now I'm trying to decide which to keep and which will go on ebay. I got 17-85mm only today, so very rough comparison. In one word, they are roughly the same, IMO.

 

1. The built is roughly the same. I do not feel 17-40 more sturdy than 17-85. While 17-40 comes with a pouch and a hood, the hood is just a joke (way tooooo big).

2. The position of zoom/focus ring on 17-40 is awkward since the zoom ring, which is the most useful one, is too close to the camera body on 300D, making it a little hard to rotate.

3. The 77mm filter size on 17-40 is more expensive than the 67mm on 17-85.

4. 17-40 EF mount, more compatible for future cameras.

5. 17-40 No IS, No 40-85mm range.

6. 17-85 is the "CA king". :D. I can confirm this. In this aspect, 17-85 is even worse than the kit lens.

7. Image quality wise, I think they are roughly the same, besides the CA issue.

 

The only thing I hate 17-85 is the CA issue actually. All I have to decide is whether I can live with it.