DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Canon EF 17-40 f4 L or EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 17 of 17, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/27/2006 06:38:29 PM · #1
Not to beat a dead horse with yet another lens question but this will be a huge purchase for me...

From other posts I've been reading it seems L lenses are worth the money. The only reason I'm considering the EF-S lens is if I keep my Rebel XT when I upgrade and shoot weddings with 2 bodies. The only problem I have is 40mm may be a bit too short, even with the 1.6x factor. Looking back at what I've shot with my 18-55 kit lens I've taken lots of photos at the 55mm end. I realize greater zoom range usually means an image quality compromise, so I can't make up my mind between the two for just over a $100 price difference.

Should I just suck it up and buy the 17-40 L and sacrifice telephoto shots for image quality or would the 17-85 IS be a better option for wedding photography? Any feedback greatly appreciated, thanks!
01/27/2006 06:44:13 PM · #2
All I can offer is one guy's opinion: I would buy the 17-40L hands down. One day, too, it is likely that the ef-s lens will no longer be compatible with your camera bodies. I am extremely pleased with the 17-40 and I bet you would be too. Good luck!
01/27/2006 06:54:36 PM · #3
from what I've heard, the 17-40 is excellent, and the 17-85 not so much so. I recommend goin' for the L's, definitely worth it. Buy a telephoto later.
01/27/2006 07:00:05 PM · #4
I know you're not directly considering it, but it might also be worth looking at the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 as a general purpose lens, since this will give you a fast mid-wide to mid-tele lens for general work, leaving your 18-55 kit lens for the wideangle stuff when you need it.
01/27/2006 07:22:27 PM · #5
get the 17-40L it's great.

my first L lens was the 17-40L f4 and it's the one I use the most, specially now that I have a fullframe digital :)
01/27/2006 07:57:53 PM · #6
I sold the 17-40 and bought the 17-85 IS, with no regrets. The build quality of the 17-85 doesn't match the 17-40, but I can't tell any difference in photo quality.
01/27/2006 08:24:58 PM · #7
pmji but if you decide on the 17-85 I have a used one I have been too lazy to sell. I have the Tokina 12-24 for the wide end and bought the 24-70/2.8L for the midrange.
PM if interested.
01/27/2006 09:09:07 PM · #8
I've been happy with the 17-85 IS. The image stabilization works very well. If you're shooting from a tripod or always shooting at high speeds the better glass should give you a better image. If you shoot a lot of handheld shots like I do the IS will be a better bet. High end glass will only allow you to capture more detailed motion blur.
01/27/2006 09:19:44 PM · #9
My "walk around lens" is my 17-85 IS. I'm one of those that really likes this lens a lot.

However, when I shoot weddings, I invariably have one of two lenses on my camera: Canon 70-200 2.8L IS and the Tamron 28-75 2.8.

I also have the Canon 50 1.8 which I keep on my Rebel.
01/27/2006 09:33:10 PM · #10
I have the 17-85 and was/am extremely happy with it. It wasn't what I wanted so I bought the 24-70L 2.8 and have had no regrets. To bad your not in Canada or I'd let you play around with it to see if you'd happy with the 17-85. There both a good choice. Make me an offer on the 17-85.
02/08/2006 08:08:37 AM · #11
I have had the 17-85 as a kit with my 20d and I also have the Tamron 24-135 SP lens. The 17-85 is a very good lens with sharper images and superb flexibility. Don't beleive everything you hear about L-lens as I am sure the difference is not that much especially considering the price. Focusing is also much faster. The only problem I would say is that corner sharpness is poor at 17mm but improves at 24mm and is fine after 35mm.
02/08/2006 08:39:22 AM · #12
My experience & opinion on the 17-85 lens tallies exactly with "magicman`s".
Not so great at 17mm (at the edges)but very sharp through the rest of the range.I`ve also found the IS to be invaluable allowing me to capture shots handheld in very poor light.

Most of my submissions and portfolio stuff over the last year have been captured with this lens.

Even at 17mm,the sharpness is fine over most of the image and if the corners don`t contain much detail the image can look fine.
Example below..
02/08/2006 10:19:31 AM · #13
The two lenses (17-40 and 17-85) are not comparable - one is a wide angle L lens with a fairly fast constant ap, the other a more general walkarond with IS...

The 17-40 is OK, a better financial choise than the 16-35. Tamron has a 17-35 that is just as good, some say better. (FM reviews the L glass at 8.7, the tammie at 8.9)

If you want fast and more range, check out the sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC. Very nice lens, a but soft at 2.8 perhaps, but just as sharp as the canon 17-40 from 4 on up (and the canon is only f4 anyway) - so you get more range, another stop if you need it, and save money.

As to the 17-85 - not a bad lens, but the Tamron SP24-135 blows it away. Over at FM it rates a whopping 9.3 and 100% receomendation rate, and it is full frame as well if that is a concern. Does macro and have lots more range on the long end. This should be your next lens.

As for shooting weddings - depends on your style. There are 2 approaches to wedding photography - flash and one lens or available light and fast glass. For some of a wedding you will use flash, and most likely f5.6 or so, so fast glass in and of itself is not important. for the ceremony where you often can'tuse flash, then fast glass is a good thing, and often a 70-200 2.8 is the best choice (the canon IS verison being a very good choise as IS can be handy at these focal lenghts)
02/09/2006 08:59:59 AM · #14
with respect to the tamron 24-135 sp - may be I just have a bad copy but it is lot slower to focus than my 17-85 with my 20d and "it does not blow it away" in terms of picture quality despite FM reviews.
02/09/2006 09:56:18 AM · #15
Originally posted by geewhy:

My experience & opinion on the 17-85 lens tallies exactly with "magicman`s".
Not so great at 17mm (at the edges)but very sharp through the rest of the range.I`ve also found the IS to be invaluable allowing me to capture shots handheld in very poor light.

Most of my submissions and portfolio stuff over the last year have been captured with this lens.

Even at 17mm,the sharpness is fine over most of the image and if the corners don`t contain much detail the image can look fine.
Example below..


I get a bit of distortion in the corners at 17mm - which is irritating me a bit. However, it is a great walk around lens. I guess the 17-40mm is heavier and bigger, and has obviously shorter reach. But if it performs better at 17mm, then it is not too much of a gap between 40mm and 70mm, partly bridged by a 50mm prime. I tend to use wideangle or zoom, not the middle part so much.

I had been contemplating the idea of buying a coherent set of lenses and selling the remainder. However, I think that I would buy, try to see what I use and then sell: which requires a bit more capital than I currently have available. I have a seaking suspicion that I would carry on using the 17-85 for walkaround purposes.
02/09/2006 10:21:58 AM · #16
This site should help you with all the listed lenses
02/10/2006 01:02:53 PM · #17
didn't realize this thread came back to life...

i bit the bullet and bought the 17-40L, VERY PLEASED!

thanks for all the help guys, and cool site hopper!
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 05:52:21 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 05:52:21 PM EDT.