Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon 17-85mm IS Lens vs Canon 17-40L Lens

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 17, 2005 6:41:26 PM

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

Seems like the latter is recommended often. The first one is one of
those that come in a kit.

Any pros vs cons for either? I think they are about the same price
(not sure about this and correct me please if I'm wrong here).
thanks.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 7:13:10 PM

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

On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:41:26 -0500, Tom wrote:

>Seems like the latter is recommended often. The first one is one of
>those that come in a kit.
>
>Any pros vs cons for either? I think they are about the same price
>(not sure about this and correct me please if I'm wrong here).
>thanks.

One is a "L" ; the other isn't.

Here are some reviews:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?prod...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?prod...


******************************************************************

"The past is foreign country: they do things differently there."

_The Go-Between_
L.P. Hartley
1895 - 1972
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 10:53:27 PM

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

<Tom> wrote in message news:1shk819k14fs6v59f2n6hg670nseqm2vv7@4ax.com...
> Seems like the latter is recommended often. The first one is one of
> those that come in a kit.
>
> Any pros vs cons for either? I think they are about the same price
> (not sure about this and correct me please if I'm wrong here).
> thanks.

I have the 17-85 but don't have the 17-40. The one I have is a very nice
walk-around lens and my guess is that it would suit most general
photographers better since it has a wider range and image stabilization. I
do happen to own one L lens and can indeed see the difference, but it's not
so much that it would matter all that much to lots of folks. The reason
that there are so many lenses is that there are so many needs (and
opinions).
Related resources
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 12:09:00 AM

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

Tom wrote:

>Seems like the latter is recommended often. The first one is one of
>those that come in a kit.
>

This is not a kit lens. The max on the kit lense is 55mm.

>
>
>Any pros vs cons for either? I think they are about the same price
>(not sure about this and correct me please if I'm wrong here).
>thanks.
>
>
May 18, 2005 12:09:01 AM

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

On Tue, 17 May 2005 20:09:00 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>
>Tom wrote:
>
>>Seems like the latter is recommended often. The first one is one of
>>those that come in a kit.
>>
>
>This is not a kit lens. The max on the kit lense is 55mm.

Ok. Maybe wrong choice of words but it comes as a package deal with a
lot of on line vendors.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 12:09:01 AM

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

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:wbsie.18356$J12.3925@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Tom wrote:
>
>>Seems like the latter is recommended often. The first one is one of
>>those that come in a kit.
>>
>
> This is not a kit lens. The max on the kit lense is 55mm.
>

There are two 20D kits, one with the 18-55 f4-5.6 for something like $1500
and one with the 17-85 f4-5.6 US USM for in the neighborhood of $2000.
Locally, Calumet has both on their shelves.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
May 18, 2005 12:09:02 AM

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

On Tue, 17 May 2005 15:13:45 -0500, Rob wrote:

>On Tue, 17 May 2005 20:09:00 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Tom wrote:
>>
>>>Seems like the latter is recommended often. The first one is one of
>>>those that come in a kit.
>>>
>>
>>This is not a kit lens. The max on the kit lense is 55mm.
>
>Ok. Maybe wrong choice of words but it comes as a package deal with a
>lot of on line vendors.


Tom, forgot to mention, some say the first one is nothing special but
the second one seems to be recommended by many. Unfortunately I don't
have either.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 3:06:44 AM

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

<Tom> wrote in message news:1shk819k14fs6v59f2n6hg670nseqm2vv7@4ax.com...
> Seems like the latter is recommended often. The first one is one of
> those that come in a kit.
>
> Any pros vs cons for either? I think they are about the same price
> (not sure about this and correct me please if I'm wrong here).
> thanks.

Can anyone comment on how the 17-85 would do in a wedding situation? Would
I be better off with a f1.8 50mm?
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 6:30:38 AM

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

Dirty Harry <NOJUNK@fu.ca> wrote:

><Tom> wrote in message news:1shk819k14fs6v59f2n6hg670nseqm2vv7@4ax.com...
>> Seems like the latter is recommended often. The first one is one of
>> those that come in a kit.
>>
>> Any pros vs cons for either? I think they are about the same price
>> (not sure about this and correct me please if I'm wrong here).
>> thanks.

>Can anyone comment on how the 17-85 would do in a wedding situation? Would
>I be better off with a f1.8 50mm?

Given the cost of the Canon "standard" f/1.8 50mm, why not have both?

I successfully used the f/1.8 50mm a few weeks ago taking
pictures at a conference without using flash.

---- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 8:57:07 AM

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

<Tom> wrote in message news:1shk819k14fs6v59f2n6hg670nseqm2vv7@4ax.com...
> Seems like the latter is recommended often. The first one is one of
> those that come in a kit.
>
> Any pros vs cons for either? I think they are about the same price
> (not sure about this and correct me please if I'm wrong here).
> thanks.

And can anyone comment one this lens compared to the 28-135 usm IS?
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 3:34:04 PM

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

> Can anyone comment on how the 17-85 would do in a wedding situation?
Would
> I be better off with a f1.8 50mm?

I bought it for just that reason but you'll have to wait until October
before I can tell you how it did.

Basically I had the 18-55 but I didn't think the zoom range was sufficient
to give the flexibility I wanted so I upgraded to the 17-85. For our
wedding (and In my opinion), the only person who can relyably use a prime
lens is the main photographer for the 'set' shots because he can control the
people. At all other times the people will be spread out and at different
ranges and the 17-85 is the perfect solution to this issue.

The only time I think a prime lens might be advantageous is at the reception
where it is likely to be dimly lit and the lack of the ability to frame
perfectly can be traded in for the extra light an F1/1.4 (or 1.8) would
give.

One thing I was trying to avoid at all costs is the need to change lenses
for each shot as the fluid nature of wedding guests guarantees that they
won't stay put long enough. Changing for groups of shots such as
indoor/outdoor, group/candid isn't such an issue as you should be spending
quite a while doing each one.

Hope that helps anyway....please feel free to shoot me down in flames if you
disagree :) 
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 2:52:14 AM

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

On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:41:26 -0500, Tom wrote:

>Seems like the latter is recommended often. The first one is one of
>those that come in a kit.
>
>Any pros vs cons for either? I think they are about the same price
>(not sure about this and correct me please if I'm wrong here).
>thanks.

The 17-85mm IS lens is not perfect but what lens is? Every
lens/camera combination has it's pros & cons that need to be
considered by who is going to use it, what it's primary use, how
often, how long? etc......

For your understanding I own a17-85mm IS, a 28-138mm IS & A
Digital Rebel/300D. The 17-85mm IS lens is a good quality lens that
does for the Digital Rebel/300D (1.6x crop factor) what the 28-135mm
IS does for a full frame DLSR or 35mm film SLR.

The lens, like me has a few weaknesses but both it & I are
capable of taking very good pictures if our combined strengths &
weaknesses are considered & compensated for. No regrets after
considerable use with both aside from wishing that the 17-85mm IS lens
was maybe $100 or $200 less than the $600 US I paid for it. Canon
knows that this zoom range is ideal for many people as an good general
purpose walking around lens & correctly figured that enough people
would pay $600 for this convenience to make it profitable.

Yes it has some noticeable distortion @ the ex teems of it's
zoom range, especially full wide angle but it your subjects are people
as with most of what I use it for, it's no problem. If you take
pictures of tall building in narrow ally ways, then yes you will
notice it.

Most of Canon's "L" glass lens certainly are extremely good
quality but not everybody can afford them or justify the expense for
"their needs", I know I can not. As for the humble 50mm f1.8 Mk II
lens, at about $70 US it's a no brainer in low light situations. No
it's not mechanically built as well as the 50mm f1.4 but it also does
not cost about 3.5x the cost either.

Bottom line: Consider "your" needs, "your" budget & lastly
"your" standards. Then go with what serves "your" needs best. So you
can place all of this in perspective, I am an amateur photographer
with 25+ years with 35mm film SLRs & 5+ years in digital photography.

Respectfully, DHB


..
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 9:27:01 PM

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

Tom wrote:
>
> Seems like the latter is recommended often. The first one is one of
> those that come in a kit.
>
> Any pros vs cons for either? I think they are about the same price
> (not sure about this and correct me please if I'm wrong here).
> thanks.


Hello

The 17-85 suffers from really bad Chromatic Aberation and barrel
distortion at 17mm. If you have Adobe Camera RAW, the aberation can be
removed.

http://www.btinternet.com/~mike.engles/mike/LensCorr.jp...

and there is a filter called Flo's Undistort, that will correct the
barrel distortion.

I don't know if the 17-40 is any better.

Mike Engles
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 2:16:23 AM

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

On Thu, 19 May 2005 17:27:01 +0000 (UTC), Mike Engles
<mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote:

>Tom wrote:
>>
>> Seems like the latter is recommended often. The first one is one of
>> those that come in a kit.
>>
>> Any pros vs cons for either? I think they are about the same price
>> (not sure about this and correct me please if I'm wrong here).
>> thanks.
>
>
>Hello
>
>The 17-85 suffers from really bad Chromatic Aberation and barrel
>distortion at 17mm. If you have Adobe Camera RAW, the aberation can be
>removed.
>
>http://www.btinternet.com/~mike.engles/mike/LensCorr.jp...
>
>and there is a filter called Flo's Undistort, that will correct the
>barrel distortion.
>
>I don't know if the 17-40 is any better.
>
>Mike Engles

Mike Engles,
Flo's Undistort sounds like a very good program & if
it will work with Adobe Elements 3.0 than I will very likely order it.
The type of photography that I usually do is rarely adversely effected
by the limitations of this lens when used @ it's extremes. However,
there are always a few exceptions that could be improved by such
software, so it would be nice to have for those occasions.

Thanks for the tip.

Respectfully, DHB
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 3:31:00 AM

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

"Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> writes:

> Can anyone comment on how the 17-85 would do in a wedding situation?
> Would I be better off with a f1.8 50mm?

Yes, indoors, iffy lighting, f1.8 gives AF and your eye much better
chance of getting the shot in time. Plus WAY sharper and higher
contrast. A 50 can be a bit long indoors though, 40 odd mm gives
just that bit extra.

If possible get an original f1.8 so you can prefocus the lens.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 6:46:44 AM

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

In message <428CCC72.79CF@btinternet.com>,
Mike Engles <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote:

>The 17-85 suffers from really bad Chromatic Aberation and barrel
>distortion at 17mm. If you have Adobe Camera RAW, the aberation can be
>removed.

You can reduce most of the coloration, but you will still have an
aberration.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 2:17:04 AM

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

Mike Engles <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> The 17-85 suffers from really bad Chromatic Aberation and barrel
> distortion at 17mm. If you have Adobe Camera RAW, the aberation can be
> removed.

Mostly compensated for, anyway. It can't generally be completely
removed, but you can generally clean it up well enough to be mostly
unnoticeable.

The distortion goes almost completely away at 24mm, to be replaced by
very mild pincushion distortion from around 30mm-85mm, which is fairly
easy to correct. I think of it as a fairly good 24-85 IS lens, with
an emergency 17-24 mode for when I don't have the opportunity to
change to the 10-22.

The 17-85 also suffers from a slight vulnerability to flaring, even
with a lens hood, but only when shooting into a light source.

--
Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 4:16:59 AM

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

"Zed Pobre" <zed@resonant.org> wrote in message
news:slrnd8slmi.9dk.zed@resonant.org...
> Mike Engles <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > The 17-85 suffers from really bad Chromatic Aberation and barrel
> > distortion at 17mm. If you have Adobe Camera RAW, the aberation can be
> > removed.
>
> Mostly compensated for, anyway. It can't generally be completely
> removed, but you can generally clean it up well enough to be mostly
> unnoticeable.
>
> The distortion goes almost completely away at 24mm, to be replaced by
> very mild pincushion distortion from around 30mm-85mm, which is fairly
> easy to correct. I think of it as a fairly good 24-85 IS lens, with
> an emergency 17-24 mode for when I don't have the opportunity to
> change to the 10-22.
>
> The 17-85 also suffers from a slight vulnerability to flaring, even
> with a lens hood, but only when shooting into a light source.
>
> --
> Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.

you guys are smoking something....
!