If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
17-40 L versus 17-85 EFS
Another lens comparison question. I have a 17 to 40 L series lens on the
20D that gives great results. Most of my use has been on tripod for landscapes. I am considering the need for the similar range but with IS as my "walkabout" lens. However, cant afford to have both. Anybody got any real time experience with optical quality between these two lenses. regards -- Don From Down Under |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Don wrote: Another lens comparison question. I have a 17 to 40 L series lens on the 20D that gives great results. Most of my use has been on tripod for landscapes. I am considering the need for the similar range but with IS as my "walkabout" lens. However, cant afford to have both. Anybody got any real time experience with optical quality between these two lenses. regards -- Don From Down Under I haven't seen first-hand the results from a 17-40L, but I have the 17-85, and it is pretty good. The images break down into pixelation before the definition from the lens suffers, so you can't do much better than that. And, for focal lengths 40mm, the bigger image size wins. Colin. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Don wrote: Another lens comparison question. I have a 17 to 40 L series lens on the 20D that gives great results. Most of my use has been on tripod for landscapes. I am considering the need for the similar range but with IS as my "walkabout" lens. However, cant afford to have both. Anybody got any real time experience with optical quality between these two lenses. regards -- Don From Down Under I haven't seen first-hand the results from a 17-40L, but I have the 17-85, and it is pretty good. The images break down into pixelation before the definition from the lens suffers, so you can't do much better than that. And, for focal lengths 40mm, the bigger image size wins. Colin. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Colin D" wrote in message ... Don wrote: Another lens comparison question. I have a 17 to 40 L series lens on the 20D that gives great results. Most of my use has been on tripod for landscapes. I am considering the need for the similar range but with IS as my "walkabout" lens. However, cant afford to have both. Anybody got any real time experience with optical quality between these two lenses. regards -- Don From Down Under I haven't seen first-hand the results from a 17-40L, but I have the 17-85, and it is pretty good. The images break down into pixelation before the definition from the lens suffers, so you can't do much better than that. And, for focal lengths 40mm, the bigger image size wins. Colin. Disclaimer: I own the 17-85 There have been a couple of posters (one on r.p.d.slr-systems) who owns both lenses. In both cases the owner said that the 17-85mm takes as good shots at the L. Keep in mind the following: 1- The 17-40 f/4L is an affordable L (much like the 70-200 f/4L which I also own) 2- The 17-85 uses ultra low dispersion glass just like L lenses 3- Both lenses soften up at wide 4- Both lenses exhibit barrel distortion at wide 5- The IS has IS :-) 6- The IS is lighter and smaller 7- The IS is about $100 cheaper 8- The 17-85 has far more reach meaning landscapes & portraits without a lens change I have been in a similar boat - at one point I was thinking whether I should sell my 17-85 (I bought a 20D kit) and get the L, but from the research I have done (and more importantly my own experience with this lens), the 17-85 is a keeper and probably the best walkaround for the 20D. If I had to start again, I would do the same and go with the 17-85. The range with IS is really tough to beat. Also keep in mind that the lens is designed for the smaller sensor meaning it should produce sharper images "where it counts" in the cropped frame. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Colin D" wrote in message ... Don wrote: Another lens comparison question. I have a 17 to 40 L series lens on the 20D that gives great results. Most of my use has been on tripod for landscapes. I am considering the need for the similar range but with IS as my "walkabout" lens. However, cant afford to have both. Anybody got any real time experience with optical quality between these two lenses. regards -- Don From Down Under I haven't seen first-hand the results from a 17-40L, but I have the 17-85, and it is pretty good. The images break down into pixelation before the definition from the lens suffers, so you can't do much better than that. And, for focal lengths 40mm, the bigger image size wins. Colin. Disclaimer: I own the 17-85 There have been a couple of posters (one on r.p.d.slr-systems) who owns both lenses. In both cases the owner said that the 17-85mm takes as good shots at the L. Keep in mind the following: 1- The 17-40 f/4L is an affordable L (much like the 70-200 f/4L which I also own) 2- The 17-85 uses ultra low dispersion glass just like L lenses 3- Both lenses soften up at wide 4- Both lenses exhibit barrel distortion at wide 5- The IS has IS :-) 6- The IS is lighter and smaller 7- The IS is about $100 cheaper 8- The 17-85 has far more reach meaning landscapes & portraits without a lens change I have been in a similar boat - at one point I was thinking whether I should sell my 17-85 (I bought a 20D kit) and get the L, but from the research I have done (and more importantly my own experience with this lens), the 17-85 is a keeper and probably the best walkaround for the 20D. If I had to start again, I would do the same and go with the 17-85. The range with IS is really tough to beat. Also keep in mind that the lens is designed for the smaller sensor meaning it should produce sharper images "where it counts" in the cropped frame. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Musty wrote:
"Colin D" wrote in message ... Don wrote: Another lens comparison question. I have a 17 to 40 L series lens on the 20D that gives great results. Most of my use has been on tripod for landscapes. I am considering the need for the similar range but with IS as my "walkabout" lens. However, cant afford to have both. Anybody got any real time experience with optical quality between these two lenses. regards -- Don From Down Under I haven't seen first-hand the results from a 17-40L, but I have the 17-85, and it is pretty good. The images break down into pixelation before the definition from the lens suffers, so you can't do much better than that. And, for focal lengths 40mm, the bigger image size wins. Colin. Disclaimer: I own the 17-85 There have been a couple of posters (one on r.p.d.slr-systems) who owns both lenses. In both cases the owner said that the 17-85mm takes as good shots at the L. Keep in mind the following: 1- The 17-40 f/4L is an affordable L (much like the 70-200 f/4L which I also own) 2- The 17-85 uses ultra low dispersion glass just like L lenses 3- Both lenses soften up at wide 4- Both lenses exhibit barrel distortion at wide 5- The IS has IS :-) 6- The IS is lighter and smaller 7- The IS is about $100 cheaper 8- The 17-85 has far more reach meaning landscapes & portraits without a lens change I have been in a similar boat - at one point I was thinking whether I should sell my 17-85 (I bought a 20D kit) and get the L, but from the research I have done (and more importantly my own experience with this lens), the 17-85 is a keeper and probably the best walkaround for the 20D. If I had to start again, I would do the same and go with the 17-85. The range with IS is really tough to beat. Also keep in mind that the lens is designed for the smaller sensor meaning it should produce sharper images "where it counts" in the cropped frame. I have the 17-40/4 L only. I love it very much. This is the lens that I use when I am walking around in the city or indoor. I do agree that IS is very useful. For the extra range and low light photography, the 17-85IS is very functional. I can't comment about it's optical performace though. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NiMH longevity versus mAh rating? | Bill Tuthill | Digital Photography | 33 | December 31st 04 09:31 AM |
Canon S500 versus S60 | Squirrel | Digital Photography | 2 | November 17th 04 01:22 AM |
20D versus 10D autofocus | Don | Digital Photography | 28 | October 27th 04 03:41 AM |
Camcorder versus Digital Camera | mcp6453 | Digital Photography | 31 | October 4th 04 10:06 PM |
Results of 150mm Apo-Sironar N Lens for Copy Work (Versus Tominon) | Dr. Slick | Large Format Photography Equipment | 6 | February 18th 04 01:44 PM |