Will this lens replace the two I already have?

james-bailey

Suspended / Banned
Messages
49
Name
James
Edit My Images
No
Hey folks ive had my 40d for 6 months or so now and still leaning the basics from my mistakes but having fun all the same.

Ive bought 2 lenses along my way.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens


I use the 17-85 mainly for taking scenery shots of lakes from the shore so the lowest part of the zoom comes in handy for wider shots to get more in. However whilst snapping away indoors it doesnt seem to work aswell with no flash.

Ive also bought the 50mm lens as advised by a friend and soon discovered the way how the f1.8 part of it creates a nice blury background when taking pictures of my springer spaniels close up.
Ive also noticed that this lens works much better indoors than the other without flash.

I gather that the f/4-5.6 is rather restrictive so been looking at what other lenses are on the market and the 17-55mm 2.8 takes my fancy (with a fancy price tag though...)

Am I right in thinking that this lens can pretty much replace both of the lenses I already have? I cant think of many situations where I have used to the zoom higher than 55mm anyway.

Any thoughts or other suggestions would be great,

Thanks

James
 
yeap it will imo i would do it in a heart beat if i had the chance.

granted you will have to downgrade the 1.8 to 2.8 the only real con but def 17-55 will demolish the 17-85.
 
Don't think you will find a much better lens than the 17-55mm albeit rather pricy

Bit of a dust magnet, but doesn't seem to affect the image quality.

Don't forget to add the price of a hood too as it doesn't come with one
 
While I wouldn't argue that the 17-55 is an outstanding lens, personally for me it wouldn't be my ideal choice for landscapes.
I prefer a wider lens such as the Canon 10-22 but if you are happy with 17mm as the widest then go for the 17-55 or if you think it's a bit exensive, have a look at the Tamron 17-50VC f/2.8.
 
17-55 is a fantastic lens. A league ahead of the 17-85. (I have deja vu having just said as much on another thread).

Don't worry too much about the dust magnet accusation. I had mine for a over a year, bought second hand. It came with one tiny bit of dust behind the front element and left my care with the same. (UV filter fitted for the duration).

Not cheap but they hold their value like an L. You will have no regrets.
 
there is quite a difference between f/2.8 and f/1.8 as far as low light ability goes. I'd say around 2/3 of my shots taken on my nifty fifty have been somewhere between 1.8 and 2.8. That's a lot of shots to miss out on.
 
there is quite a difference between f/2.8 and f/1.8 as far as low light ability goes. I'd say around 2/3 of my shots taken on my nifty fifty have been somewhere between 1.8 and 2.8. That's a lot of shots to miss out on.

If you are shooting moving subjects then I agree, but otherwise the 3-stop IS of the 17-55 and the much better bokeh trump the nifty fifty any day. Also, the 17-55 is lovely and sharp wide open at 2.8, the nifty fifty is best stopped down a little for best quality.

Don't get me wrong, for the dosh the 50 is great. It doesn't hold a candle to the 17-55 quality wise though.
 
17-55 is better than both of these 2. 50/1.8 is very soft wide open so don't worry about losing that stop. You can always get 85/1.8 later and it is a miles better prime.
 
I have to agree with "daugirdas " the 17-55 is considerably better than the 17-85 & the 85mm f1.8L is a cracking lens
 
Sounds like its definitely something to consider then! Thanks for all your views.

Looking to sell my 17-85 first but dont have enough posts accumlated to sell on the TP Classifieds forum yet and dont really fancy eBay...
 
17-55mm is the best walkabout lens you can buy for a Canon crop sensor. IQ is far superior to the 17-85 and better than the 50mm f/1.8 prime @ 50mm. The loss of a stop and a bit (f/1.8 vs f/2.8) is a sacrifice well worth making.
 
Back
Top