Replace EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS ?

[cbjetboy]

I currently own an EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens and an EF 100-400 f/4.5-

5.6L IS lens. My wide lens is an EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS. I am

wondering if the EF 24-70 f2.8L or the EF 24-105 f4.0L would be

worth the cost to replace the EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS. My new 70-200

and 100-400 lenses are awesome and would like to have my wide lens

in the same ballpark image-wise. Not having the 24-70 or the 24-

105, I can't judge the 17-85 performance. Thanks! P.S. I use

these on a 20D.

[gdanmitchell]

I also started with the 17-85 and then moved on to "L" (and other) lenses.

 

On the 20D I would miss the wide range of the 17-85 if I replaced it with either of the

lenses with a 24mm wide end. This is equivalent to about 38mm on full frame which

really isn't very wide at all.

 

I got the 17-40 f/4 L instead and I'm quite happy with that in conjunction with the 50mm

f/1.4 and the 70-200mm f/4 L. I'm thinking about adding the 24-105 to the mix, but

mainly with the goal of eventually moving to full frame.

 

If you offered me a choice between using the 17-40 plus the 50mm or using either of the

24+ zooms, I'm quite sure I'd have to pick the 17-40. Of course, I do a lot of landscapes

and the wide angle is pretty important to me.

[cbjetboy]

Also, I use the EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 mostly indoors/outdoors when I can't fit the shot into my 70-200 such as group shots, cars and bikes in groups, etc. It does seem pretty sharp but also slow in low light.

[peter_foiles2]

The best choice is probably the new EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS that will start shipping in May I believe. It will likely be expensive but I expect worth it.

[jurigab]

As you know, you have a 1,6X crop factor on your 20D, so i don't think that a 24-105 or 24-70 is the perfect choice. Take the EF-S 17-55 f/2,8 IS if you don't want to take a full frame camera in the next future, take the 17-40 f/4L or 16-35 f/2,8L (only if you need a 2,8 aperture) if you want to buy a full frame camera body.

Bye

[pjmeade]

Fore wide angle on the 20D the 24-X is a bit long, equating to about 38mm on full frame. I'm not familiar with the 24-70, but the 24-105 is excellent on the 20D. In the UK, the 24-70 costs about 200GBP more than the 24-105. You will know from the 70-200 if 2.8 is what you want.

 

If you want to go full frame and have a wide angle, you will want to look at the 17-40/f4 or the 16-35/f2.8. There is a luminouslandscape comparison of those two lenses. The f2.8 costs about double the f4. I have the 17-40/f4 and think it's another excellent lens.

 

Hope some of this is of help.

[brian_faini]

look into the sigma ex 18-50mm 2.8/f EX

I read multiple reviews and comparisons to lens in its range that canon offers and it seems to be on par with the canons for the most part little bit of CA on the wide end but that is with the common black against bright that all lenses face. I wanted a faster lens to cover the range on my 300d. at 2 stops faster on teh wide end and 4 stops faster on the other and $700 less than the canon, it seemed logical. All of ther reviews gave it rather good marks, google "sigma 18 55 2.8"

I didnt want to pay another $700 for IS and the name

I just ordered mine for $435 with uv filter, shipped

[cbjetboy]

Thanks for the comments but my original question remains...are the other lenses good enough (better than the EF-S 17-85) to justify the cost to upgrade or should I keep the EF-S 17-85?

[steve santikarn]

All of the Canon L wide angle zooms are better than the 17-85 IS in terms of quality. I would still keep the 17-85 for its all round flexiblity (great one lens choice for travel). How about getting the 10-22 EF-S AND the 24-70 L f2.8 to cover the range of the 17-85? That should improve your wide end quality significantly without leaving any gaps.

[david_wu6]

This type questions have been asked many times. Most of answers you will get will be what you will use it for. One really can�t simply correlate $$ to performance of a lens (of a computer, may be), since there are so many attributes to consider. There are better lens in terms of speed, build quality, fixed aperture or sharpness. But those better lens may not have IS or similar zoom range. Even if every thing else is equal, whether a lens with 10% better in sharpness is worth 20% more $$$ will depends on one�s financial strength. It appears you are in a good situation. So wait for a few months to get the 18-55 2.8.