17-40 vs 17-85 Italy

[jayhai]

I will be going to Italy this summer for 20 days, and I need to decide which lens to bring. I

think I will bring my sigma 10-20 for wide. I would like the range of the 17-85 and IS. But

the distortion at 17mm is making think I should sacrafice the IS and get the 17-40L. Does

any one have any advice on these lenses?

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I can't compare the two, as I've never used the 17-85. I own the 17-40, which I bought for my 20D and which is my most-used lens. I don't know how much distortion the 17-85 has at the wide end, but be aware that the 17-40 also has quite a bit of barrel distortion at the wide end. That's pretty normal in a wide or ultrawide zoom.</p>

 

<p>Will you be taking anything longer than the 17-40/17-85? If not, you may find the 17-40 too limiting on the long end. I haved used the 28-105 and 28-135 (both on film bodies) as my main lenses, and the effective 27-64 which the 17-40 becomes on a 1.6-crop body just doesn't go long enough for me. Therefore, I take both the 17-40 and the 28-135 with me when I travel. Your 17-85 is equivalent to the 28-135 for reach; that seems to be to be a reasonable all-round lens, as my 28-135 was on a film body.</p>

[bobatkins]

Why does distortion matter with a DSLR? It's basically a one click correction in most image processing software.

 

It's not like you're shooting slides or even doing optical printing from film negatives, where distortion is an important factor.

[eos 10 fan]

Not sure what your budget is but: Just a reminder that the new EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM will be available sometime in May for an estimated selling price of USD$1,150.

 

--

[gdanmitchell]

I have both. It really comes down to a trade-off and a matter of preferences.

 

The 17-85 is a fine lens in many ways, but it is a bit less sharp (especially in the corners),

and it

shows more noticable vignetting at large apertures. The construction is a little less solid in

my view, though overall pretty decent.

 

On the other hand it covers a wider range of focal lengths and, for many people, may be

the only lens you need to carry. The image stabilization feature may also be worthwhile if

you plan to shoot hand-held a lot.

 

Regarding sharpness, I am very confident about getting sharp 12" x 18" prints from my

17-40 in almost all cases. While I _can_ sometimes print images taken with the 17-85 at

this size, I must be very careful about

aperture selection and so on. However, if you won't print that large the sharpness

advantage of the 17-40 may not count for much, especially if you would benefit from the

longer focal lengths available on the 17-85.

[carlo_cayetano1]

I was in Italy for two weeks last year. I brought a 17-35, a 50, and a 200. I cycled through all, but I did find that I liked using the 200 around the cities. Helped me frame the street shooting really tight, plus I could pick off some architectural details. But that's me - it all depends on what you like to shoot.

 

Previous poster is right on - distortion can be fixed via computer. If anything, slap on a fixed lens, like a 24 or 35. You'd be surprised at how you compose given one lens length.

[lovcom_photo]

Tim, you don't have a fast lens to cover dark churches, monuments, challanging light shots. You need something around F2 if not faster.

 

I would suggest you get a fast prime, at least F2, but F1.4 is better. When traveling don't always think flash will be permitted.

 

I'm also going to Italy this spring and I'm taking the following lenses for my 5D:

 

Canon 15mm F2.8 Fisheye. (Architectural, specialty lens)

Canon 35mm F1.4L (My museum lens for flashless shots)

Canon 24-70mm F2.8L (for general use cityscapes/landscapes/candids/architectural)

Canon 85mm F1.8 (long reach for dark flashless shots)

[disneyry]

A little more information will help out. What camera? What do you like to shoot? Where are you going to be? Do you have something longer? Do you have something faster?

[jayhai]

I like to shoot lowlight and wide, landscape and architecture. I will also be bringing my

50 1.4. Right now I do not have a walk around lens or anything longer. Longer I don't

mind. 85mm is fine for me. I have a 20d.

[jayhai]

Oh, also I am touring all over, Big cities and small cities, there is not one specific place.

[marlowe_boyd]

Hi Tim

I toured Italy last summer with the 17-85 on my 20D. I took 1500 RAW images

(be sure you have a storage device - ipod 40gb in my case) and was very

impressed with the results. In dark areas, night scenes, churches, etc., I used

an iso 800 setting and the IS really helped! I also have the 70-200 2.8 IS but

it is way too heavy to travel with all day. I made a calendar on lulu.com. You

can check tout some images there. Just access calendars, travel, and italy -

you will find 18 views by Marlowe Boyd. All shot with the 17-85. Enjoy your

trip - Italy is fabulous!

[kahkityoong]

I have the 17-40 but not the 17-85. If distortion is a worry for you then I doubt things will improve getting the 17-40. I also use Nikon and switching from the Nikon 12-24 on the D70 to the 17-40 on a 5D was a rude shock in terms of distortion.

[marlowe_boyd]

Hi again. I just checked out those images on lulu and they are much softer

and color intensive than the actual images. Something about converting from

rgb to cmyk really distorted them. My actual calendars looked nothing like that

preview.

[jim_larson1]

Well.. .. I did italy last year with a 17-40/4L, a bunch of primes, and a flash unit. (and other stuff).

 

I must say that inside dimly lit churches. . . (1) You rarely can use flash and (2) even a F2 prime will be too slow! These situations were made for IS zooms :).

 

But for the Italian landscapes, and all forms of outdoor photography. . .the 17-40/4L is the Bee's Knees.

 

I would seriously consider bringing ALL THREE lenses.

[steve santikarn]

I took 17-85 IS, 50 mm f1.4, and 75-300 mm IS zoom lens for my trip to Italy last summer. On the 20D the 17-85 IS was the most used lens for me. The 50 mm f1.4 was the least used, I needed the fast lens for the interior and the 50 mm was just not wide enough for most interior shots. Mid-day sun was very harsh and you get best shots early mornings (which was great because the tourists do not generally get up early in the morning) and late afternoon (more like 6-8 pm). I wish I had taken my tripod for the night and interior shots.

[dogbert]

I did Italy last year and took a Sigma 10-20, 18-50 f2.8, 28-135 IS and 35f2.0. The Sigma 10-20 was the main lens used in churches. The 28-135 IS was mainly used on a film body and only used for a few shots on digital. Nevertheless, I was glad to have something with some reach.

 

If I were you, I would take all three, but if you are only going to take two take the 17-85 IS rather than the 17-40.

[jws]

I have the 17-40 and 50/1.4. The 17-40 isn't really long enough for me for a travel lens so I'm planning to sell both lenses and buy the new 17-55. I'll still have plenty of low light capability with IS and will be able to travel with just one lens...

[JeffOwen]

I would take the 10-22mm and the 17-85mm IS. I also have the 70-300mm IS DO but probably not use it unless I knew I was going to take some long shots. Wish I had on this shot taken of Vesuvious.<div></div>

[affen_kot]

remember that indoors in italy will be often unforgiving on an F4 lens. you won't get very sharp pictures in the vatican, where the ambient lighting is downright terrible in most rooms. the F4 just won't cut the mustard unless you jack up your ISO, at which point you have to start dealing with annoying noise. i'd go with versatility and IS (17-85) rather than the small increase in resolution (17-40). cheers.

[henry_minsky1]

Bob, can you tell me where do I find the "one click" correction for Photoshop CS, for my Sigma 18-50 lens? Is there a 3rd party plugin with a database of lens corrections?