17-85mm vs 24-85mm

[jayhai]

Would anyone pick the 24-85 3.5-4.5 over the 17-85mm ef-s? Still am not convinced with

17-85, and I have heard that the 24-85mm can really perform.

[henrik.ploug]

Would anyone pick the 24-85 3.5-4.5 over the 17-85mm ef-s?

 

No, but the 24-105mm f4 L IS, if you can afford it.

[creativegeek]

I've had good copies of both. They are equally sharp - pretty sharp actually. The 17-85 is a

bit soft at 17 as the 24-85 was a bit soft at 24. The 17-85 is a better range and feels much

more solid, but the 24-85 was nice and light and compact. It's just a bit faster too. I had the

24-85 for many years on a film body but went for the 17-85 when I went digital for the wide

angle. If you need the wide angle in the same lens then I'd say definitely go for the 17-85,

but if not then save the money and get the 24-85. Both very nice lenses giving very sharp

results.

[taner]

Recently I bought a used 24-85, and returned it the next day (no return policy abuse here, the store knew that I wanted to test it). It was supposed to be for my partner to use on with my XT as a small and light lens for 'everyday' type photos, and perhaps for travelling light (my 17-40 is too big and heavy according to her).

 

First the good part: At f/8, it was unbelievably sharp, both at the center and corners - I really did not expect it to be that good. It was close enough to the results with the 50/1.8 prime - close enough to make me think that I could live with the results I get from it during my light, one-lens travels. Very encouraging color and contrast too.

 

Then I tested it wide open (around 50mm, it was f/4 if I remember correctly). I got 'acceptable for 8x10' kind of results at the center, and 'this will look bad even at 5x7' kind of results at the corners. Very, very bad performance on a x1.6 crop camera!

 

"...O.K., maybe not good enough for a one-lens travel solution, but maybe still good enough to consider" I thought.

 

Then I tested it for distortion @ the 24mm end... Horrific. How can anyone take a photo with straight lines in the frame with this lens? Grotesque... Maybe I have been spoiled with the distortion performance of my 20 and 28 primes, I do not know, but I certainly could not live with that kind of distortion. Imagine shooting a straight horizon! Or evern worse, closer focus distances...

 

Took the damn thing right back the next day.

 

Perfect size and weight, very good sharpness stopped down. Very decent color and contrast. But wide open, a disaster. Distortion: total deal breaker!

 

I say go for smth. else.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Distortion is pretty much a fact of life in an ultrawide or wide-to-tele zoom, particularly a consumer-grade one. My 28-105 (which is widely regarded to be roughly on par with the 24-85 as far as overall optics are concerned) and my 28-135 (a step up from the 28-105) both have <a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/writings/eflenses.html" target="_blank">plenty of barrel distortion at the wide end</a>. I believe my 17-40/4L has less (I've never directly tested it against the 28-135), but it's still quite noticeable at the wide end and I often need to fix it in <a href="http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/" target="_blank">software</a>. I've never used the 17-85 but I'm certain that it, too, will have at least a fair bit of distortion at the wide end.</p>

 

<p>Tim, what other lenses do you have, and how important is wide-angle coverage? If you're considering an EF-S lens, you're obviously using a 1.6-crop sensor, on which the 24-85 only gives 38mm (in 35mm-equivalent terms) coverage. The 17-85 gives you 27mm. I bought my 17-40 in preparation for going digital with a 20D, because I knew from previous experience with the 28-105 and 28-135 on film bodies that I would not want to sacrifice the 28mm-equivalent wide coverage. I kept the 28-135, and it and the 17-40 make my general-purpose lens kit (for travel, for instance; I have other lenses for when I need something longer or faster).</p>

[jayhai]

I have the sigma 10-20 for wide. I usually use this lens for extreme situations, I don't use the

20mm range. I am trying to find a replacement for my sigma 24-70mm. My problem, is it is

too havy and long, and it is intrusive. I am debating between the 17-40, the 17-85, and the

24-85. All of these fit what I need.

[jim_larson1]

The choice between the 17-40, 17-85/IS and 24-85 is somewhat straight forward.

 

If you want a lens with *no compromise on quality*, then the 17-40/4L is for you. It is a notch above the other two lenses.

 

The 24-85, however, is still quite a good lens. A good value.

 

If, however, you need image stabilization. . then you get either the 28-135/IS or the 17-85/IS. Doubling the cost of the lens buys you image stabilization. It does not buy you optical or construction quality.

 

Note: on a dSLR (1.6 crop), "24" ain't all that wide. That may push you to a 17-40/4L or 17-85/IS choice.

 

Note: Call me a snob. I shun EF-S lenses such as the 17-85 because I still occassionally use film cameras. Sure. . in a year I take 2000 digitals and 48 film shots. But when I have my film camera. . . I can't afford the weight of lenses that don't work on both cameras.

 

Besides. . .I have enough issues holding me back from full frame. I don't want "must get new lenses" on that list.