17-85mm or 17-40mmL

D

DinoS

Hmmmmm.......Paste!
Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,823
Edit My Images
Yes
hi as title,

i have a 400d and orginally was looking at the 17-85mm but then discovered it is a EF-s lens and if full frame does become cheaper i am S*%$^ed. because i will have to buy another lens.

so then i looked at the 17-40L, it isnt IS but does this matter.

i am looking for a life long purchase.

if it was you money what would you buy

thanks

Mark
 
anyone know kersos price on the 17-40
 
The 17-85 isn't in the same league as the 17-40 so the L lens is an easy choice.
The real alternative is the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, but it is another EF-S lens so you're back to the "will I ever go full frame" dilemma.
 
I had to make the same choice a few months back. I went from the 17-40mm - Never regretted it.
 
IS would onl matter if your trying to do hand held shots all the time. If Your using a tripod (for landscapes), then IS is redundant.
Remember IF you do get a full frame camera, you may still have you old body which you can use with the EF-s lens.
Personaly I have a 17-40 & 17-85 but that is soon to be replaced by a 24-70 f2.8L as I've got a 1.3 crop sensor, but still will use the 17-85, depending on where I am.
 
a) L glass is soo much better
b) IS isn't so important at shorter focal lengths
 
I chose the 17-40mm L over the 17-85mm, purchased through Kerso for £390 + postage. You get £50 cashback from canon. Expecting it any day now, as soon as the bank transfer completes :D
 
It all depends what you want the lens for, there is quite a bit of difference between 40mm and 85mm. I tried a 17-40 and felt it didn't offer enough reach as a walkabout lens and ended up with the 17-85 bought s/h through this forum, which I'm very happy with. Another lens to consider which many TP members like is the Sigma 17-70

Mr Perceptive
 
Horses for courses.
I'd buy the 17-40 L if I wanted a top-notch lens for landscapes.
I'd buy the 17-85 IS if I wanted a high-quality walk-around lens.
 
This is actually a more difficult choise then people make out. The comments that L glass is SO much better is actually faulse.

I owned the 17-85 IS for about a year, and in that time it I used it to take a whole bunch of great photos. Some of these would not have been possible with the 17-40 F4 (like 1s hand held). The image quality is fairly close in images printed up to A3+, but at A2 it starts to show some differance.

The main differances where the 17-40 is better is the distortion at the wide end, where the 17-85 is really bad.

Having said that I have had no problems getting images though the QC process of a place like Alamy shot with a 20D, and 17-85 IS, so it is cirtainly capable of very good images.

The 17-40 F4 has the most anoying lens hood ever (but then you have to buy the one for the 17-85 seperately, which is also anoying).
 
I just bought a 17-40 from Kerso - £405 including postage (and that's before the cashback from Canon).
 
so the 17-40mm is £335 posted and the 17-85mm is £290.

not much in it?

but as you say it depends what i want.
 
Sorry if this is slightly off topic... but its still about the 17-40L.

I have a Sigma 10-20 f2.8 and my next in the line-up is a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 do I need something to cover that 8mm gap or is it not really necessary?
 
Trust me on this, the 17-85 is no good from 17-30mm, soft corners and lots of CA....it is very sharp at 85mm though (as sharp as a 70-200 f4) but for my money I wouldn't waste it on the efs lens...The 17-40 is a superb lens, suffers a little from CA's but only at the corners and on a crop body you shoudln't see this.
 
Can i throw another lens into the mix?

I'm looking at the 17-40L or the Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 as my next lens, i'm in a dilemma as to what to go for, the sigma is tempting as it's a faster lens, cheaper and has good reviews, but the canon is, well, an L. What should i go for?
 
I have the 17-40 L with my 5D

It's a little too short on a full frame to be the ideal walkaround lens.
It may well be L series, but it's also getting on a bit now and the optics in use on other lenses may be closing the gap by now.
 
^ I'v used my 17-40 on a 5D, it's stupidly wide lol.

Definatly go for the 17-40 L, i'v been using mine for just under a week now, it's such a good lens.

Don't forget it's L glass, so better quality optically speaking than the 17-85.

Oh and it's built like a tank and weather sealed.
 
8utters said:
^ I'v used my 17-40 on a 5D, it's stupidly wide lol.

Oh and it's built like a tank and weather sealed.
Click to expand...

It is very very wide at 17mm :love:

But it's only truly weather sealed if there is a filter on the front.
 
Janice said:
Sorry if this is slightly off topic... but its still about the 17-40L.

I have a Sigma 10-20 f2.8 and my next in the line-up is a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 do I need something to cover that 8mm gap or is it not really necessary?
Click to expand...

On a crop sensor the only thing with the Tamron is that it is not wide enough at 28mm. It is still good for most things and was a great walkabout lens on the 20D. When you need wider than 28mm then going a lot wider is not likely to be a problem. I doubt you will notice the gap.

Back on topic.... a lot of my Canada shots were hand held with the 17-40L and beautifully sharp (and really wide on the 5D). As long as you keep the shutter speed sensible then the lack of IS is not a problem.
 
I've used both. The 17-85 on my 20D and the 17-40 on my 5D. I found the 17-85 suffered from some serious barrel distortion at the 17 mm end. Particularly noticeable with horizons.

the 17-40 has a bit of distortion at 17mm but only a bit. The rest of the range is fine.

All but two of my lenses have IS , yup one is the 17-40. Is it a problem? No. Is it a good lens? Yes.

It's worth remembering that as the pixel count rises in modern DSLR cameras the the quality of the glass in front of the sensor gets more and more important.
 
Having been ad avid user of the 17-85 for over a year now, I can say that it has been an inredable lens for me...Yes it's not an L glass lens, but it is still very good.
I have sold a number of Landscape shots using a 17-85 lens. It will certainly do as a holding lens..until you decide to go(if you do) FF.
 
digitalfailure said:
It is very very wide at 17mm :love:

But it's only truly weather sealed if there is a filter on the front.
Click to expand...

Yep. I have a Hoya Pro UV filter on mine :)

Cost me like 30 quid.

For me weather sealing was kinda important. I'v almost had my lens drenched in an alcoholic beverage (lol) many a time, it's only a question of time before it gets a nice coating of RedBull. At least I can just (quickly) wipe it off without being to worried about it being damaged.

Just have to look after my body, not weather sealed at all.
 
how does the 18-50 F2.8 sigma compare?

thanks

Mark
 
it's cheaper for a start, i asked the same question above and am intrigued to know as the sigma is part of their EX range (equivelent of 'L')
 
The Sigma 18-50 is crop sensor only but I've seen lots of good reports about it. Having said that, I went for the 17-40 in the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top