EF 17-40 f4L or EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS or EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6IS

[ashish_gokhale]

I have purchased an EOS30D body but am confused on the lens I should

buy. The lenses that I found suitable for casual photography (mostly

family indoors with/without flash [420EX] and landscapes) are EF 17-

40 f4L or EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS or EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6IS.

 

Need recommendations to make a decision.

 

- Ashish, WI

[ted_reyes]

I really enjoy my 17-40 f4L with a 10D for landscapes, pics from helicopter and family functions in close quarters.

[jim_rais]

<P ALIGN="justify">

Pityful for you, there's no such like "the ideal" lens for all purposes, of the highest quality, built like a tank <I>and</I> cheap, too. Judging from what you said, looks like that the one and onliest suitable lens for your purpose(s) would be the EF-S 17-85.<BR>

 

<BR>In 35mm film range term this EF-S 17-85 lens is equal to 27mm - 136mm, which is very very useful range for almost anything photographable. And .. it's also the cheapest of those three. In the long run the EF 17-40 (equal to 27mm - 64mm) will feel too short for you (or you have to buy another longer zoom lens to compensate this).<BR>

 

<BR>As for the EF-S 17-55 it has quite the same condition. The longest end falls a bit short (equal to 88mm), but the most disadvantage of this relatively fast lens (f/2.8) is that when you're not planning to shoot in low light condition frequently, or just shoot indoors with a flash light, it's just too expensive for the matter. The lens is more than twice as expensive as the EF-S 17-85. Hope this helps. Good luck.<P>

 

<LI><A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=332699">Jim

Rais</A></LI><P>

[emwalker]

If you think you'll ever want to upgrade your camera body then the EF-S lenses may not be the way to go. Then again, the new size format may stick for a long time, but I seriously doubt it- the sensors are more likely to go full-frame in the next few years, in which case your EF-S lenses will be unfit. I think it makes more sense to invest in lenses as a priority- their value won't change much in the coming years but your camera's depreciating already.<BR><BR>

 

And do your homework on lenses, here's some very helpful reviews:<BR><BR><A href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=27">FredMiranda reviews</A>

[emwalker]

One more lens to consider is the Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 XRDi. It's fast and super sharp, and you can pick one up for around $300-350. The optics are near L quality, though the focus is not as quiet and fast but this has not been an issue for me since I got mine. The wide end is not as wide as your other choices, but for an all-around shooter this lens is great, and you can always pick up a super-wide at a later time.

[robin_sibson1]

Canon are actively expanding their EF-S range with some first-rate lenses (10~22, 60/2.8, and now the 17~55) and I cannot see that investment being written off in the short term through 1.6-factor bodies being abandoned or limited to the low end. Whilst FF has its attractions, in my view it is increasingly apparent that there is room for both formats, just as there was for 35mm and MF on film. Even if you think you might buy a FF camera in the future, you will be able to sell EF-S lenses at a reasonable price, so there is no reason to be inhibited about buying them now. I have the 10~22 and 60/2.8, as well as a lot of EF lenses, so I have put my money where my mouth is!

 

If it is optically as good as anticipated, the 17~55 probably trumps the 17~40 for 1.6-factor use in all respects except weight and cost - it is faster, has IS, and has a usefully greater zoom range. The 17~85 is a lower-grade lens (I tested it against my 17~40, which was better optically throughout its range) and slow at the long end, but it is cheaper, lighter, and has a substantially wider zoom range than the other two. You pays your money and takes your choice. My own current walkaround combination is 10~22 plus 24~105, which is great provided the cost is acceptable and you are prepared to carry two lenses and change them as needed.

[daniel_taylor]

17-40 f/4L for landscapes if you plan on going full frame someday. Otherwise 17-55 f/2.8IS.

 

For family indoors, 50 f/1.8 or 50 f/1.4.

[pto189]

If you buy the 10-22 and 24-105, you don't need any of the lenses in your list.

[jim_larson1]

Phillip makes a valid point.

 

The 10-22 and 24-105/IS (or the 24-70/2.8L) are a more useful albiet a more expensive option.

 

Of the lenses on your list. . .I place "EF-S" in the "negative feature" column. It's not that EF-S will be phased out. It's just that *your* next camera may very well be full frame.

 

Note that the 17-85/IS will have lower image quality than the 17-40/4L. Sure. . the 17-85/IS is pretty good. But the 17-40/4L is better. For *casual* photography. . . .the "IS" function of the 17-85/IS is of more value than the incremental image quality improvement of the 17-40/4L.

 

The 17-55/IS is twice as fast and twice as expensive as the 17-85/IS. To me. . .that says that image quality from the two lenses should be similar. (ie, F2.8L zooms are twice as expensive as 4.0L zooms: Why would that same rule of thumb not apply to EF-S IS lenses?)

 

In general. . .I think $1100 is an awful lot of money to pay for a prosumer grade piece of glass. And the EF-S factor. . .no thank you.

[martin_palm]

Do not buy the 17-85, if you like wideangle photos. I have both, the 17-40 and the 17-85 and I sold the latter because of very heavy distortions at 17mm- ca. 24mm. The IS is fine but can't really beat the 17-40s image quality which is far better. Color is much better, too. It's an L lens and you can clearly see it.

 

I have a Tokina 12-24, too for wideangle photos, it's very good at 12mm but not as good as the L-Canon from 17-24.

 

And, another argument, you cannot use the EF-S-lenses on analog cameras and full-frame DSLRs. The 17-40 is outstanding with film!