EF 17-85 IS or EF 17-40 F/4L - Advice Needed!

[chad_jones]

Hello All

 

I am relatively new photography so need some advice on my next lens

purchase. I received a Rebel T2 with kit lens and EF 75-300 USM for

Christmas last year as a gift and truly fell in love with

photography. I have purchased the EF 50 f/1.8 based upon

recommendations from this forum. I have recently decided to upgrade

to digital (Rebel XT) as film processing is expensive where I live

and the amount of shooting I have done would have paid for the

camera by now. My budget allows an additional lens purchase (+/-

$600). I like the range that EF-S 17-85 provides and IS. But for

$650, I can buy the EF 17-40 f/4L and have a ?L? quality lens.

However, I?m not sure my skill at this time will show the difference

between the EF-S 17-85 and the EF 17-40 f/4L. A friend of mine has

suggested that I buy the best now since I will want it later as my

skill develops. I also like the EF 17-40 f/4L since it will still

work with my film body. I?ll try hard to not pixel peep, but being

an engineer I am know that I want a sharp lens. The only worry I

have about the EF 17-40 f/4L is I tend to shoot more toward the 50-

100 mm range with my film lens, but I like having the wide angle

when needed. I also have a general feeling from reading posts on

the forum that the quality of the 17-85 may not be as good as its

cousin the 28-135 IS. Any recommendations from those that have been

through the process before? Do I buy the 17-85 for the versatility

or go for the ?L? quality?

 

PS Early on after I received my T2 I got some dust on the focusing

screen. Not liking that one bit I tried to brush it away and, of

course, made it worse. I solve problems all day so I can solve this

problem, and jumped off into an area I shouldn?t and long story

short scratched the focusing screen in several places. The camera

still works, but the auto-focus seems to hunt more than before. Any

idea what it would cost to fix or should I forget it since I am

going to digital? I like the idea for a film backup since I do a

lot of traveling and is always nice to have an alternative, but the

Rebel T2 is only $200 and may not be worth fixing.

[les]

Chad, I do not have the 17-85 IS, but I used to own the 28-135 IS USM.

Yes, I could see the difference between my 17-40 and the 28-135 when the 28-135 was wide open. At f8 I could not see much of a difference. While the 17-40 appeared to be better optically overall, I had no complaints about the 28-135. And IS certainly worked as advertised.

 

OTOH, your main consideration should be: do I want to get into EF-S series (since it is limited to 1.6x bodies) ? It the Digital Rebel my last DSLR (I doubt it very much) ?

If you plan on upgrading to 1.3x or a full frame DSLR, then it probably does not make much sense to buy a EF-S lens. As for using the 17-85 on a film body - my guess is that your film SLR will start gathering dust pretty soon anyway... ;)

[jim_larson1]

And the reason you need to spend $600 for lenses? What is happening to your existing lenses?

 

The bottom line is that the 17-85/IS, at $600 compares sort of well to the $400 28-135/IS. The 17-40/4L, at $650, compares well to the $1300 16-35/2.8L. It is my humble opinion that most of the EF-S lenses are simply hugely overpriced.

 

My advice:

 

Option 1: Keep you existing lenses and supplement with the $100 18-55 kit lens. Add more later.

 

Option 2: Supplement your existing lenses with the 17-40/4L.

 

Option 3: Buy the $100 kit lens (18-55) along with the $400 28-135/IS. You will have a longer "reach" and save about $100.

 

PS: I suspect you don't ever want to clean the sensor on the XT :)

[cfimages]

You can only use the EF-S 17-85mm on the Drebel, or the 20D (so far). It will not work with a film camera, or Canon's older prosumer DSLRs (10D etc), or Canon's 1 series DSLRs.

Keep this in mind.

[chad_jones]

Thanks for the feedback all. Option 3 is nice Jim, one I hadn't thought about. I've read good things about the 28-135 IS and would probably fit my shooting style more. I'll keep the kit lens for times when I want the wide angle. You are also right Jim, I am worried about the sensor cleaning aspect as I have read many posts that indicate it is required from time to time with dSLR. After my bad experience with my T2, I've learned to keep my fingers out of the camera body.

[johnb]

I really recommend the 17-40L, it will work with both cameras.<br> However remember or learn that a 17mm lens on your Rebel T2 will be like a 27mm lens on a Rebel XT (the 1.6 factor). So if you go for the 28-135 it will be like a 45mm lens (not really a wide angle) on your XT. Besides you already have a 50mm prime (which is like an 80mm lens on the XT). <br>

I also don't see a need for IS on a wide angle lens, telephoto is another story.<br>

Also with digital you will more likely see diffrences in lenses more so then with film cameras.

Here is a shot I took with the 17-40L<br>

<center><br><A href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3363329" title="Click to Open Photo Spec page" target="_blank"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3363329-lg.jpg" alt="Click to see Photo Specs" style="WIDTH: 333px; HEIGHT: 500px"><br>

EF 17-40L HandHeld<br>

click for specs.

</A></center>

[donna z]

Hi Chad, I'll add my opinion here, FWIW.

I have the 17-40 F/4L and it is by far my favorite lens. I have been through the cheaper lenses and they really represent false economy. What you spend in upgrading is much more in the long run than just getting the good lens to begin with. If you have a good local camera store, see if they will let you bring in your camera and try out the lenses you are interested in purchasing. See for yourself which one best suits your needs(and budget).

Beware - once you use really sharp, high-quality glass the cheap stuff simply won't do anymore.

[bill downey]

I found this article by Bob Atkins extremely helpful in making my purchase decision this week. It is well worth a look

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/10d300dlenses.html

 

Good luck

 

Bill

[sjg]

Since you mention that you use 50-100 a lot, the 17-40 might not

suit you. It is certainly an exellent lens, both in terms of build and optics, but if you rarely use that range...<p>

The suggestion to get the 18-55 and 28-135 is a good one - provided you can handle the toy-like build of the 18-55 (I couldn't).<p>

I opted for the 17-85, the range is very good (I use 40-85 more than the wide end), IS works and at f/8 it's hard to tell the difference between most lenses. I've not seen any data to suggest that the 17-85 isn't a good comparison to the 28-135.

I borrowed a 17-40 briefly to compare, wide open up to 24mm I thought the 17-40 was clearly better, but beyond that I had difficulty telling the difference and its the wide open performance you pay for with 'L's. Note that this wasn't a rigorous test, just a quick comparison to see if I'd made a horrible misstake with the 17-85, I concluded I hadn't and I still find it useful.

[mark u]

Since you shoot a lot in the 50-100mm range on film, it makes sense to get a good lens that has similar coverage on a crop digital body. That translates to 28-70 or so. Rather than getting a "good consumer" lens (the 28-135), or an L that isn't optimised for the focal lengths that are of prime interest to you, I think you should look at the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 Di, which competes with Canon's 24-70 f/2.8L optically at substantially less cost. There are also a couple of recent Sigma lenses that have been similarly well reviewed - the new 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro, and the similar 24-60. If you shoot wide angle rarely, the kit lens may well suffice for now to provide wider digital coverage, and you can think of adding a 70-200 (f/4L, f/2.8L IS or f/2.8 Sigma) at some stage to upgrade the quality of your longer shots. One thing to remember about crop sensors is that you need wider apertures to get similar DoF to full frame, so a faster lens can be more useful than IS. (I'm guessing you shoot a lot of portrait/candid work).

 

A new focus screeen for your T2 can be bought directly from Canon parts deptartment at fairly low cost. Replacing it is feasible, and it's worth avoiding Canon's minimum fixing charge. You will find some hints on how to do it yourself here:

 

http://photonotes.org/articles/split-circle-screen/

 

If you run into difficulties it probably won't be worth paying to have it fixed - a second hand T2 sells for less than the likely cost of repair.

[dk.]

To make a long story short! ;o)

 

I had the 17-85 "IS" And I was not very happy. Sent it back got the 17-40F4L and I am happy now! :o)

 

DK.

[tom_christiansen]

Hi,

 

If you like the 50-100mm range, I suggest looking at the 24-70/2.8 L. It's a monster of a lens but is of superb optical quality. I'm a "normal to long-ish" shooter myself (and an engineer too). The 24-70 has become my "get the shot" lens. It might be a bit out of your price range at this point, but I suggest saving your money and buy a lens which will suit your needs rather than jumping at the cheapest lens.

 

Please don't make the same mistake that I and countless others have made. It's easy to get tempted by specs and features of lenses. Then you end up with more lenses in the closet than you know what to do with. Use 1-2 lenses while you are learning. Prime (non-zoom) lenses will make life easier as you lock in one variable. Learn how depth-of-field, exposure, etc. work. You can always change to a zoom lens later. Don't buy a lens because you think it will change you as a photographer. It won't! Buy a lens if you feel limited by your current gear.

 

Tom

[delwyn_ching]

Due to the cropping or mutltiplication factor of 1.6 for the Drebel Series and 20D, 17-40 = 27-64 on a film camera, 28-135 = 45-216, 24-70 = 38-112. Since you like the 50-100 range, then the 24-70 f2.8L is the range for you but it costs a little over $1,100 so start saving your money. Also, the EF-S lenes are limited to the Digital Rebel Series (Original DRebel and the DRebel XT) and the 20D only. If you are thinking about upgrading a few years from now to a 1.3 crop factor camera, then the EF-S lenses won't work on them. Something to think about: the future and compatibility.

[steve santikarn]

The Canon G6 used to be my "travel" camera, it is light and covers a decent zoom range. Now I use the 20D with the 17-85 EF-S lens, it is a vast improvement on the G6 (especially in low light situation). The picture quality is no where near the L lenses, but when I have to cary my own gears the L lenses are not an option (the grip, flash, and tripod also stay at home).

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i>A friend of mine has suggested that I buy the best now since I will want it later as my skill develops. </i> </p>

<p> I couldn't agree more but you see, I suffer from perfectitis terminalis in it's acute state. It's symptoms are that I can't buy anything but the best, even if it's more expensive (my wife hates me for this) and I can't recommend anything but the best. Now you can understand why I advise you to get the 17-40/4.</p>

<p> <i>I tend to shoot more toward the 50- 100 mm range with my film lens, but I like having the wide angle when needed. </i> </p>

<p> The 17-40/4 + your current 50/1.8 nicely cover the 27-80mm range. I think it will do for now. Not too wide and not too long but for that you will need extra money. Personally, if I had an EF-S body I'd buy the 10-22 (~16-35mm) but it is a 800$ lens. Another lens that comes to mind is the 85/1.8 (~135mm) but again, it's an additional 300$. <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#expensive">life is tough</a>.... </p>

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[wilfred_m_rand]

Funny, no one has inquired as to WHAT you shoot. The best quality lens is the one that works for you, and best captures what you want. If your work is casual, low light, indoors, tripod free then the 17-40 f/4L is NOT the best lens for you no matter how good it is. So be sure you give a lot of thought as to how you will use the lens, then buy the right one first....you can always double back and get the other lens later.

[dexonwerks]

When in doubt always go for the "L".

[graham_binns]

I agree the EF-S is well well over priced. If you buy now you will kick yourself when prices drop.

 

L glass has a wider market and is more expensive to make due to the tollerences , construction and quality of the glass so the prices will stay high as it can be used on 1 series and film cameras.

 

I asked a canon rep the same question at a recent trade show in the uk and he was suprised that the answer wasn't obvious and that he recommended L glass.

 

Mind you I have seen results from this EF-s lens and the results are pretty good ,the IS is only needed coz its so slow at the telephoto end.

[chunin_martinez]

Graham Binns , may 17, 2005; 04:05 p.m.

I agree the EF-S is well well over priced. If you buy now you will kick yourself when prices drop.

L glass has a wider market and is more expensive to make due to the tollerences , construction and quality of the glass so the prices will stay high as it can be used on 1 series and film cameras.

 

I asked a canon rep the same question at a recent trade show in the uk and he was suprised that the answer wasn't obvious and that he recommended L glass.

 

Mind you I have seen results from this EF-s lens and the results are pretty good ,the IS is only needed coz its so slow at the telephoto end.

 

____________________________________________________________________

Yeah right! So Canon is really a genius making tons of money by putting IS on all those slow 300/2.8IS, 400/2.8IS, 500/4IS and even the 600mm. And why also on the 70-200IS?