Canon 17-40 f4L or 17-85 f4-5.6 IS?

[aungzawwin]

hi frens,
will it be a wise decision to change to 17-40 f4L from kit lens 17-85 f4-5.6 IS?
like the "L" and and its full frame compatibility, but on the other hand, that kit lens has tighter zoom and IS.
how good is 17-40 L lens over 17-85 kit lens?
thanks for your inputs.
regards,

 

[estel]

hi frens,
will it be a wise decision to change to 17-40 f4L from kit lens 17-85 f4-5.6 IS?
like the "L" and and its full frame compatibility, but on the other hand, that kit lens has tighter zoom and IS.
how good is 17-40 L lens over 17-85 kit lens?
thanks for your inputs.
regards,

how do you define good?

build-wise, weather sealed and solid 17-40 wins hands down.
image quality wise 17-40 is better but not by a very large margin.
versatility-wise 17-85 wins. It's a very good zoom range for a crop body,
17-85 has rather good IS. 17-40's f/4 isn't really good indoors without IS.
all in all, improvements you FEEL will be marginal.

given the loss you have to bear from selling the kit lens, probably save a bit more and go for a second hand 17-55 or a 24-105?

 

[Headshotzx]

That's the way I went, instead of 400D Kit2. If you have the money, go for the L or EFS17-55IS. If you don't, stick with kit 1 18-55IS.

 

[dRebelXT]

since u can afford, the logical choise will be the newest EF-S 18-200 IS..

 

[Benosaurous]

since u can afford, the logical choise will be the newest EF-S 18-200 IS..

why is it logical?

for the TS,
it really depend on if you are willing to sacrifice the extra focal reach for a better optics, build, lens without IS.

personally i feel, IS does make a difference, but not too much on a wide angle lens. But if you like more reach and dont shoot in wide often, i will also suggest you to look at 24-105L IS usm. build optics and reach, without wide on apsc. it is actually a 17-85 on a full frame.

 

[gymak90]

I agree with Headshotzx.
17-85 is not a fantastic lens to begin with. If you take my statement literally, it is still true, because optically at the wide angle 17mm end, it is quite bad :bsmilie: There is very significant distortion, light fall off and some CA. You need to be at minimum 35mm before those stuffs disappear.
So the humble 18-55 is more worthwhile to have.

 

[aungzawwin]

thanks frens,
in this case i'd rather think of 70-200 f4L cos my determination to use an L lens is growing badly ;p
may be i'm poisoned!
will stick with 17-85 for the moment since i normally don't use wide ends. only use 17mm for casual group fotos in which distortion is quite forgivable by the participants

 

[MarkTan89]

I have used both these lenses before and I'd definitely have to say the build quality on the 17-40L is second to none; it's built like a tank. The 17-85IS on the other hand, is pretty alright overall, nothing to shout about. Optical quality, the 17-40L is a visible step up from the kit lens for sure and is slightly sharper than the 17-85IS. If you have the money, get the EF-S 17-55IS, the image quality beats both these lenses, hands down.

 

[aungzawwin]

went out and tried 17-40. build like a tank? yesss ;p. and it has huge front glass. 77mm?
but zoom ring and focus ring are reversed to 17-85...i tend to turn the focus ring when i tried zooming
placement of focus ring & zoom ring of EF and EF-S reversed?

 

[MarkTan89]

But it's a minor niggle which you will soon get use to. Besides, the focus ring on the EF-S lenses are smaller than those on EF lenses so it'll be easy to differentiate.

 

[aungzawwin]

That's the way I went, instead of 400D Kit2. If you have the money, go for the L or EFS17-55IS. If you don't, stick with kit 1 18-55IS.

don't have a lot but i'd go for 17-55 in exchange with the 17-85 kit. may be a used one
17-40 seems a little short for me in long end and it does not have IS.
thanks frens, for your kind recommendations:thumbsup:
regards,