Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

17-40 L versus 17-85 EFS

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
January 5, 2005 1:53:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Another lens comparison question. I have a 17 to 40 L series lens on the
20D that gives great results. Most of my use has been on tripod for
landscapes. I am considering the need for the similar range but with IS as
my "walkabout" lens. However, cant afford to have both. Anybody got any
real time experience with optical quality between these two lenses.

regards


--

Don From Down Under

More about : versus efs

Anonymous
January 6, 2005 5:43:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don wrote:
>
> Another lens comparison question. I have a 17 to 40 L series lens on the
> 20D that gives great results. Most of my use has been on tripod for
> landscapes. I am considering the need for the similar range but with IS as
> my "walkabout" lens. However, cant afford to have both. Anybody got any
> real time experience with optical quality between these two lenses.
>
> regards
>
> --
>
> Don From Down Under

I haven't seen first-hand the results from a 17-40L, but I have the
17-85, and it is pretty good. The images break down into pixelation
before the definition from the lens suffers, so you can't do much better
than that. And, for focal lengths > 40mm, the bigger image size wins.

Colin.
January 6, 2005 5:43:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:41DC97AA.93F46C72@killspam.127.0.0.1...
>
>
> Don wrote:
> >
> > Another lens comparison question. I have a 17 to 40 L series lens on
the
> > 20D that gives great results. Most of my use has been on tripod for
> > landscapes. I am considering the need for the similar range but with IS
as
> > my "walkabout" lens. However, cant afford to have both. Anybody got
any
> > real time experience with optical quality between these two lenses.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > --
> >
> > Don From Down Under
>
> I haven't seen first-hand the results from a 17-40L, but I have the
> 17-85, and it is pretty good. The images break down into pixelation
> before the definition from the lens suffers, so you can't do much better
> than that. And, for focal lengths > 40mm, the bigger image size wins.
>
> Colin.

Disclaimer: I own the 17-85

There have been a couple of posters (one on r.p.d.slr-systems) who owns both
lenses. In both cases the owner said that the 17-85mm takes as good shots at
the L. Keep in mind the following:

1- The 17-40 f/4L is an affordable L (much like the 70-200 f/4L which I also
own)
2- The 17-85 uses ultra low dispersion glass just like L lenses
3- Both lenses soften up at wide
4- Both lenses exhibit barrel distortion at wide
5- The IS has IS :-)
6- The IS is lighter and smaller
7- The IS is about $100 cheaper
8- The 17-85 has far more reach meaning landscapes & portraits without a
lens change

I have been in a similar boat - at one point I was thinking whether I should
sell my 17-85 (I bought a 20D kit) and get the L, but from the research I
have done (and more importantly my own experience with this lens), the 17-85
is a keeper and probably the best walkaround for the 20D.

If I had to start again, I would do the same and go with the 17-85. The
range with IS is really tough to beat. Also keep in mind that the lens is
designed for the smaller sensor meaning it should produce sharper images
"where it counts" in the cropped frame.
January 6, 2005 5:43:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Musty wrote:
> "Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:41DC97AA.93F46C72@killspam.127.0.0.1...
>
>>
>>Don wrote:
>>
>>>Another lens comparison question. I have a 17 to 40 L series lens on
>
> the
>
>>>20D that gives great results. Most of my use has been on tripod for
>>>landscapes. I am considering the need for the similar range but with IS
>
> as
>
>>>my "walkabout" lens. However, cant afford to have both. Anybody got
>
> any
>
>>>real time experience with optical quality between these two lenses.
>>>
>>>regards
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>Don From Down Under
>>
>>I haven't seen first-hand the results from a 17-40L, but I have the
>>17-85, and it is pretty good. The images break down into pixelation
>>before the definition from the lens suffers, so you can't do much better
>>than that. And, for focal lengths > 40mm, the bigger image size wins.
>>
>>Colin.
>
>
> Disclaimer: I own the 17-85
>
> There have been a couple of posters (one on r.p.d.slr-systems) who owns both
> lenses. In both cases the owner said that the 17-85mm takes as good shots at
> the L. Keep in mind the following:
>
> 1- The 17-40 f/4L is an affordable L (much like the 70-200 f/4L which I also
> own)
> 2- The 17-85 uses ultra low dispersion glass just like L lenses
> 3- Both lenses soften up at wide
> 4- Both lenses exhibit barrel distortion at wide
> 5- The IS has IS :-)
> 6- The IS is lighter and smaller
> 7- The IS is about $100 cheaper
> 8- The 17-85 has far more reach meaning landscapes & portraits without a
> lens change
>
> I have been in a similar boat - at one point I was thinking whether I should
> sell my 17-85 (I bought a 20D kit) and get the L, but from the research I
> have done (and more importantly my own experience with this lens), the 17-85
> is a keeper and probably the best walkaround for the 20D.
>
> If I had to start again, I would do the same and go with the 17-85. The
> range with IS is really tough to beat. Also keep in mind that the lens is
> designed for the smaller sensor meaning it should produce sharper images
> "where it counts" in the cropped frame.


I have the 17-40/4 L only. I love it very much. This is the lens that I
use when I am walking around in the city or indoor. I do agree that IS
is very useful. For the extra range and low light photography, the
17-85IS is very functional. I can't comment about it's optical
performace though.
!