Comparision between 17-40L to 17-85 IS

[wynx]

As above. Quite unsure which wide lens to buy....17-40L is a proven lens but what about the 17-85 IS? Someone have samples to show and comments to make?

[freelancer]

No comparison .. the L will win without a doubt in all aspects.

[Russ]

I am also trying to decide

17-40L
+ Build and image quality is well known
+ Fits all EOSs
+ Easy to resell
+ Full frame capable
- Only zooms to 40
- No IS

17-85 IS
+ IS
+ Zooms to 85 so more flexible as a multi purpose lens
- Image quality may not reach 17-40L std (judging from 28-135IS)
- Cannot do full frame??
- Resale ease??
- Fits only 300D and 20D.

So it depends what your priorities are.

[mr_jason]

Originally Posted by freelancer No comparison .. the L will win without a doubt in all aspects.

I beg to differ.

The IS feature on the new EF-s lens is a BIG benefit I would like to have on my EF 17-40mm f/4.

Judging from the MTF charts on Canon Japan's website, at the wide end 17mm and aperture wide open for both lenses, their quality looks on par, as well as colour and sharpness. Even at f/8.0, the quality for both lenses is still somewhat similar.

It wont be fair to compare both lenses at the tele end, as they are different focal lengths. But the MTF chart of the EF-s 17-85mm at 85mm for both wide open and at f/8 look very decent indeed.

It may not be stamped with 'L' quality, because of it's EF-s mount and its build, but the quality of this lens is indeed quite good, therotically. The price is similar to the EF 17-40mm because of the IS feature.

If I were a new 300D/20D user and intending to stay with the 1.6x crop bodies for some time, this is most definately a lens I will consider over the EF 17-40mm because of the IS feature, very useful.

[espn]

The build of the 17-85 is like a kit lens feel... I'd rather go with the 17-40L any time any day.

[mpenza]

regarding the MTF, do note that the charts for EF-S lenses go to 13mm only while the charts for normal lenses extends much further.

[mr_jason]

Originally Posted by mpenza regarding the MTF, do note that the charts for EF-S lenses go to 13mm only while the charts for normal lenses extends much further.

Yes but if you're comparing it for the 1.6x crop bodies, all you need to go up to is the 13mm mark on the EF 17-40mm as well, because anything above that will be out of the sensor's 'image circle'.

Which is why I say the therotical quality is similar for both lenses.

Essentially if you're using the EF 17-40mm f/4 on a 1.6x body, you've paid for glass you're not using.

[John Tan]

17-40mm F4L is better in term of colour and contrast.

But if compare in term of sharpness, there are about the same - still lag behind Carl zeiss(prosumer cam) and Leica lens (Prosumer cam).

[John Tan]

17-85 IS is more suitable for 300D but not for serious photography - that is why Canon can't be bother to suit other series DSLR like EOS 1D / 1Ds / 1ds mk2.

[freelancer]

Originally Posted by mr_jason Judging from the MTF charts on Canon Japan's website, at the wide end 17mm and aperture wide open for both lenses, their quality looks on par, as well as colour and sharpness. Even at f/8.0, the quality for both lenses is still somewhat similar.

MTF does not express how good the color will be as that is dependent on the lens element coatings used. The 17-40/4 is tack sharp, good contrast and colors even wide open. Would expect the 17-85 to be soft wide open and good perhaps 2 stops from its widest aperture. You end up paying a lot for the IS feature which gives you something like 2 stops handholding.

Apart from that the build quality, the environmental seals of the L lens would reduce the amount of dust getting into the lens and finally the shutter box. Mind you, if the EF-S 17-85 is build like the 28-135 IS, its like an air pump which means more sensor cleaning.

Having said this, yes the 17-85 is a good lens by itself but it is not in the same league as L lenses.

[mr_jason]

Originally Posted by freelancer MTF does not express how good the color will be as that is dependent on the lens element coatings used. The 17-40/4 is tack sharp, good contrast and colors even wide open. Would expect the 17-85 to be soft wide open and good perhaps 2 stops from its widest aperture. You end up paying a lot for the IS feature which gives you something like 2 stops handholding. Apart from that the build quality, the environmental seals of the L lens would reduce the amount of dust getting into the lens and finally the shutter box. Mind you, if the EF-S 17-85 is build like the 28-135 IS, its like an air pump which means more sensor cleaning. Having said this, yes the 17-85 is a good lens by itself but it is not in the same league as L lenses.

My mistake on the colour. It's only contrast and sharpness.

Based solely on the charts, your accessment of the 17-85mm being soft wide open and good 2 stops from wide open can't really be determined. In terms of sharpness they look similar. In term of contrast they also look similar wide open.

I agree on the build of the lenses, indeed the 17-40mm is superior.

IS is indeed an expensive feature of this lens, but looking at how well received the 28-135mm IS has been since it's introduction, this is a right move in Canon's part.

[freelancer]

Originally Posted by mr_jason looking at how well received the 28-135mm IS has been since it's introduction, this is a right move in Canon's part.

Most certainly a well thought through zoom range by Canon.

My opinion is based on knowledge of the 28-135 IS on which this new lens is based on (a number of design similarities so it appears). A good walkaround lens for most people but I would not even want to remotely compare this lens with the L.