Anyone prefer a 17-85 EF-S over 17-40L?

[wayne_huang3]

I've been looking at the EF-S lens for photojournalism work. Unlike

the standard 24-70L, the 17-85 covers the wide decently even with 1.6x

crop as well as giving a longer reach.

 

Though it is f4-5.6, the IS would make up for slower shutter speeds in

low light. This is one of the biggest attractions for me as you're not

having to pay the price for a f2.8 lens and it is lighter. Also the

reach is two times the 17-40. For the time being, I have been mounting

a 50mm for a longer reach without having to carry another zoom.

 

So the 17-85 seems to cover most of my needs in this respect. I'd like

to know what users of this lens think as opposed to the 17-40 as a

walk-around lens.

 

Wayne

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I used the 28-135 as a walkaround lens on film bodies, and it worked very well. The 17-85 is the equivalent lens on 1.6-crop bodies; it gives essentially the same range and speed, and like the 28-135 it has IS.</p>

 

<p>I don't have the 17-85; I have the 17-40, which is my most used lens on my 20D. But whereas I could get away with just carrying the 28-135 on a film body if I had to pack as little gear as possible, I can't do that on the 20D; the 17-40 just doesn't go long enough to be a one-lens solution. So I usually take both it and the 28-135, or if I'm really tight on space, the 17-40 and 50/1.4.</p>

 

<p>If your need is for a one-lens solution, the 17-85 is probably your best choice. If you can deal with two lenses, I think you can do better.</p>

 

<p>One thing to keep in mind is that IS is really only useful to counter your own shakiness; it is useless at stopping subject motion. For that, you need to pan (and I believe the 17-85 is missing mode 2, so it's not supposed to be used when panning) or a higher shutter speed (which a slow lens won't help you achieve). I find IS very useful on my 28-135 and on my 300/4, but it is important to be aware of its limitations.</p>

[gdanmitchell]

I have both and I still use both.

 

The 17-40 produces noticably better images with sharper focus, and with less corner

drop-off in sharpness and light. It also retains the f4 aperture over the full 17-40 range. I

use the 17-40 more for landscape and similar photography, almost always with the

camera on a tripod though I do some handheld shots with it at times. I generally do not

use it handheld in poorly lit situations though.

 

The 17-85 covers a nice wide range for such a compact and light lens. The images

stabilization is effective and useful. There are some image quality issues - vignetting, soft

corners, only f5.6 at the long end - but it is fine for many uses. I use the 17-85 more for

people shots and as the proverbial walking around lens. I do sometimes use it handheld in

relatively low-light situations (such as at concerts) since I can shoot at pretty slow shutter

speeds with the IS turned on - as long as the subjects are not moving too much.

 

I also use the 50/f1.4 in low light situations. On my 1.6 crop-factor camera this provides

a mild telephoto effect which is often useful. Sometimes I prefer the f1.4 prime over the

17-85 IS zoom. I also own a 70-200 f4, but I think I get more use out of the 50mm.

 

I think of the 17-40 and 17-85 as different lenses for different purposes. When I got the

17-40 I originally

thought I might not have much use for the 17-85, but that has not turned out to be the

case.

 

Dan

[hakon_soreide]

I haven't used the 17-40, but my only Canon lens is the 17-85, which I got instead of the kit lens when buying the Rebel XT. As a general-purpose lens, it's simply great. It focuses rather closely for quasi-macro work, zooms in comfortably close for me (I am used to an 80mm prime on a Mamiya 7 and its 40mm-equivalent angle of view) and the image stabilisation gets me handheld non-shaky pictures down to 1/10 and 1/8, though of course with moving subjects, subject movement would be an issue at those speeds. <p>Image sharpness seems to be very good, though I've not had the opportunity to compare it with other lenses on the same camera, and only on one or two occasions have I seen some chromatic aberrations to contend with, which usually isn't all that challenging a Photoshop task to deal with.

[jojo_ma]

The L is obviously higher quality in build and refinement. But the 1785 is quite a good lens, and if your sole criteria is "walk-around" then the 1785 is better in that sense: having IS and 17-85mm range is hard to beat. More comments and new test shots at my site:

 

http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/17401785

[mark u]

Photojournalism in my mind is associated with fast lenses for the most part. Doubly so if you have a smaller sensor, which limits depth of field control - photos with impact isolate the subject, especially as you often don't have the ability to take time to pose subjects against nice uncluttered backgrounds when you are covering news. My pick against those criteria would be the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. Stopping action in murky lighting is another reason for going with a faster lens, as is increasing the range of flash.

[peter_rowe]

I agonized over this too. I rented the 17-40L for a full week. I mostly take landscape photos so I usually have the tripod. I found the lens sharp (although not as sharp as my 70-200L F4), the color was great, and the build is certainly very solid. I also tried a 17-85mm. I found the extra reach of the 17-85 very useful but the IS is what got me -- it really works well. So I decided on the 17-85mm. I bought mine from B&H and I don't know if I have a great copy but the shots are mostly every bit as sharp as the 17-40L I rented. It gets a little bit softer around the edges when it is opened up, and there's some CA (but not bad at all on my copy) when opened up too. Still, even wide open the center region is every bit as sharp as the 17-40mm. I replaced my Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 with this. I do sometimes notice the increased DOF with the f4 - f5.6 of the 17-85mm so I am not able to blur backgrounds as much as I would like sometimes. With it's wide range, sharp optics, IS, fast focus, light weight, and FTM this is really a great lens for the 20D (as long as full frame is not in your immediate future). I just love mine, the IS is fantastic, and it's rarely off my camera.

--Peter

[jim_larson1]

IS will freeze buildings when shooting in low light. . .but it will not freeze "people". For that you need high iso and/or a fast lens.

 

Honestly. . .I would prefer to have F2.8 and IS. Since I am "relatively poor", I go for the 4L. And a fast prime :)

[brian_goodman]

I have both the 17-40L and the 17-85 IS. Most of my portfolio was shot with the 17-40L, but the 17-85 gives great results. Mine is very sharp, except for some corner softness, as has been noted. The range is great and the IS is very useful. The 17-85 gets the most use between the two, for the range and the IS function. And as I stated, mine is very sharp when stopped down alittle bit.

[tom_m2]

I think for a walk-around lens, the 17-85 is probably a better choice than the 17-40L, because of weight, zoom range, price, and IS. The image quality of the 17-85 is very good and has never been an issue for me (I don't have the 17-40L, but I do have a bunch of prime lenses).

 

OTOH, if price and weight are no obstacles, you might as well get a 5D with prime lenses...

[susan stone]

I have the 17-85, I love the 17-85! In the recent January 2006 issue of Popular Photography & Imaging there are two Lens reviews/tests, one for the Canon EF-S 10-22 and the other is for the Canon EF-S 17-85 and both of them get EXCELLENT grades through a range of tests. Happy Holidays everyone.

[theoldmoose]

Wayne,

 

You didn't mention which of the 3 different EFS bodies you are using, but if you have one of the later ones (Digital Rebel XT, or especially the 20D), then you can finesse the situation a bit by shooting at ISO 800, which is almost noise-free on those cameras.

 

For photojournalism, I'm assuming that you are taking shots of non-static images, i.e. people, rather than places, for the most part. That means that comments about freezing motion of the subject are an important consideration, more so than whether a lens takes good landscape shots.

 

So, if it is important to take top-notch shots in available light and freeze the motion of your subjects, then you will need to either go with something like a f2.8 zoom (expensive), or use a prime like the 28mm f1.8 (which on a 1.6x crop factor camera gives a nearly 'normal' view). Remember that a lot of brilliant street photography has been done over the years with a Leica and 'normal' view lens.

 

When I need to take candids in available light, I reach for one of my f1.8 primes -- 28mm, 50mm, or 85mm, depending on the space I have to move about in. For interior shots in crowded quarters, I could even use something wider than the 28mm, but at least it's more versatile than being stuck with the 85mm and not being able to back up enough to 'get the shot', because you are confined by the furniture, walls, etc.

 

Since getting a 20D, I've been experimenting with ISO 800 shots, using a 17-85mm, in available light. For some situations, it's OK, but still a bit limiting. I find that I still prefer to use a f1.8 prime, even for flash, because it extends my coupling distance for flash, and lets me control the background/foreground lighting situation to my taste, without getting into slow-sync exposures.

 

Finally, I found DxO Optics Pro to be a lifesaver, to deal with the vignetting and CA that dogs even decent zooms like the 17-85mm. It's cheap insurance to fix the occassional shot that rears its ugly head from time to time. DxO is a lot faster than dinking around in PS, trying to fix those items, plus it does a good job of de-blurring soft edges when the lens is wide open, as well.

 

Some day (soon?) most bodies will take practically noise-free shots at ISO 1600 or even higher, and folks will be able to dispense with with big glass for handheld work, unless they really need to produce a shallow depth of field.