Lens Comparison EF 17-40mm f/4L USM & EF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

[Magz K]

Dear Folks,

I was just about to purchase the EF 17-40 f/4L USM lens for my Canon 30D, just then I came across the other lens EF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM which is relativly cheaper.

Can anyone help me make a better decision on which one to go for, my prime objective is to shoot people in parties & functions. Plus some scenic snaps as well.

Thanks a lot for going thru.

Cheers

[jsbn]

Well, if budget's a problem for u now and u intend to have fun with ur camera (instead of earning a living outta it), go with a cheaper and one with a wider focal length.

If u demand quality-quality-quality and nothing less than the best and ultimate, get the L.

[jdredd]

i would get the 17-85mm.. from what i hear, optics are good..

might not match quite the sharpness of the 17-40.... but the IS will really help a lot in indoor shoots and 17-85 means quite a lot of flexibility.

[Magz K]

Thanks a ton for the feedbacks.

just one more question though, If i were to really go for the L lens which one you would recommend? still the 17-40?

Thanks.

[freelancer]

Originally Posted by jdredd i would get the 17-85mm.. from what i hear, optics are good.. might not match quite the sharpness of the 17-40.... but the IS will really help a lot in indoor shoots and 17-85 means quite a lot of flexibility.

The EF-S 17-85 is about the same image quality as the 28-135 IS lens. All round walkabout lens but above average image quality (sharpness, color, etc)

[Canew]

Originally Posted by Magz K Thanks a ton for the feedbacks. just one more question though, If i were to really go for the L lens which one you would recommend? still the 17-40? Thanks.

Magz K, what type of L lens do you have in mind? Wide angle lens? If it is, then you have 2 choices :-
1. EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM.
2. EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM.

There is also the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM that has the 'ingredients' & performance of an L lens, but not officially designated L by CANON.

[hwchoy]

if you are going to shoot people in parties, die die also get an f/2.8 you need all the light you can get. might as well have an 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 as well to blur out the partying background.

personally used the EF-S 17-85mm, never again.

[jsbn]

Originally Posted by Magz K Thanks a ton for the feedbacks. just one more question though, If i were to really go for the L lens which one you would recommend? still the 17-40? Thanks.

If ur budget allows (which I assume it is), u have 2 choices like Canew said.

The difference between those two is 1 stop of light and the double the cost (f2.8 lens = $3K. f4 lens = $1.4K). U'll have to weigh how much u can afford to throw, ur bank account and whether u are able to make full use of that 1 full stop of light available/not available.

[MuthuCurry]

Originally Posted by freelancer The EF-S 17-85 is about the same image quality as the 28-135 IS lens. All round walkabout lens but above average image quality (sharpness, color, etc)

'

I am currently using 17-85, and totally agreed with freelancer's comments tt it is a good walk ard lens. good range, good optics and i find it serves me well when i travelled overseas - one lens cover most of the range!!

[hwchoy]

Originally Posted by MuthuCurry ' I am currently using 17-85, and totally agreed with freelancer's comments tt it is a good walk ard lens. good range, good optics and i find it serves me well when i travelled overseas - one lens cover most of the range!!

I agree on the travel part, the range is pretty good. however, don't try to shoot at the really wide end in strong contra lights. the CA is insufferable and barreling is very strong too (still correctible, use PTLens).

[solarii]

Based on yr needs I say go for the 17-85. Covers a very good range and has IS for low light.

The 17-40 of course offer superior image quality, however you may find it harder to use the lens for your intended purpose unless you have an external flash and are willing to forgo the tight crop shots an 85mm can provide.

[hwchoy]

I still think the extra stop at f/2.8 is very useful for your intended use, but of course have to fork out the $$ lah. IS can never compare with real f-stops. that's why I suggest you have a fast 50mm prime on standby just in case shooting conditions go beyond what your lens can manage (whether 17-40L or 17-85 IS) at least you will have a fast prime to get some useable shots.

[imaginary_number]

If u're ok with 3rd party, can also consider Sigma 18-50 F2.8.

[Canew]

Here are some perspective comparison shots for both the EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM and the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.

1.




2.




3.




4.

[solarii]

Appreciate the effort but I don't see how this is relevant to the topic

[Canew]

Nothing la. Just showing the difference in perspective in the lenses that I mentioned in my post.

[Magz K]

Thanks a ton Canew! The photos are really cool & were very informative for me.

Wonder how much difference it can make when clicked in a family gathering! (close range shots, portraits, groupies etc) In the long shots the L lens is the clear winner though.

[hwchoy]

the EFS 10-22 is excellent for taking big group of people in a small room

[wong1979]

Hi does anyone have a 100% crop of something like small wordings which can tell apart the difference in sharpness between a 17-40 and a 17-85. Never own or touch an L-lens before and would like to know the diff. Thx!

[Nightstar]

Hi, I'm also interested to know more about EF-S 17-85mm for travel (sorry to side track a bit here! ) I've actually tried it yesterday at AP and really liked the IS and the range for travelling BUT just a bit concerned about the following:

- loss of f-stop (f4)
- getting too dependent on IS

Not sure whether is it really worth it to spend on the IS while sacrificing the f-stop. Any comments would be useful, thanks!

Nightstar
(newbie)
EOS 350D