Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 14, 2004, 6:34 PM   #1
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2

I recently purchased the EF 17mm-40mm f/4L (recent enough to possible get a refund). But now that the EF-S 17mm-85mm is out, I'm wondering if I should get this instead.

I also have the EF 70mm-200mm f/4.0L so I'm currently deficient in my 40mm-70mm range, promptly me to wonder if I need to get a lens to cover that gap.

The 17mm-85mm has two things going for it, image stabilizer and the greater zoom range.

I want to see what folks opinions were on the 17mm-85mm and see if I should return my 17mm-40mm and replace it. If the 17mm-40mm is the far superior lens and I can learn to live without the zoom gap, then I'll need to be convinced of that as well.

calvinboy24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 14, 2004, 7:35 PM   #2
Senior Member
ohenry's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676

I've never used the EF-S 17-85 but I have used the first EF-S lens. I also own a 17-40L lens. There is no comparison in image quality, sharpness, and build to the EF-S. If it were me, I wouldn't even consider such a move. Want to close the gap? Buy the Canon 50mm f/1.8 prime lens. It's an excellent lens at a very modest price (70 bucks?). JMO.
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2004, 1:08 AM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,572

The 17-85 has those two qualities going for it as you said, but it also has one huge problem, that god-awful high price. Compared to regular EF lenses it's overpriced for what you get, even with the smaller size.

Despite what you may have read or believe, it is not necessary to cover EVERY focal length from 17-200mm. The difference between 17-40 and 70-200 makes it obvious when you want/need to have a certain lens mounted. The 70-85mm overlap between the 17-85 and 70-200 would be a waste too. I'll take the 70-200 f4L at any of those focal lengths over the new lens, even without image stabilization. Spend $60-$70 on the 50mm f1.8 if you just can't do without any option between 40-70mm.

In the end the one who's going to have to convince you is YOU, not someone else here. If you do have the 17-40, take it out and shoot it. If the weight is too much, sell it, buy the 17-85 at $600 and be happy. In my opinion, if you're going to spend big dollars on an EFS lens and return the 17-40 f4L you shouldn't be looking at the 17-85, but at the 10-22 which is really unique.

Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2004, 1:33 PM   #4
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4

Hi ohenry,

I'm also interested in this new 17-85mm IS lens, but the price seems so high that one should really go with the L series. I haven't seen any reviews of this new lens yet, especially any with shots vs. an L.

Don't you think Canon is using decent glass here? or is the message supposed to be clear that you're not getting L quality here?

I have a wife who likes her morning coffee, and weighs in at 98lbs wet. In other words, she might benefit from the IS hand shake reduction, and isn't this new lens lighter (and perhaps chintzier) than a comparable L?

Id hate to spend $600 and not see much quality uptick from my stock 300D lens, so I think the L is my move, however this new lens has its attractions. Any input appreciated.

And could you give me more info on that prime you suggest? Is it pretty sharp? It migh make a good move for me too. Thanks

bearleton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2004, 2:46 PM   #5
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4

he-he, I just bot that 50mm prime after seeing your shots with it in another thread.

I figure it's a good baby step into the world of buying lenses.


bearleton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2004, 1:13 AM   #6
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10

A question about the 50mm f/1.8 everyone keeps mentioning. Is it this one:

$139.99 CAD

or this one:

$599.99 CAD

Everyone keeps sayin its cheap, I'm hoping its the former.

llama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2004, 7:25 AM   #7
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4

I have the first one you posted, but I paid only $79 for it I believe.

It's pretty sharp.

bearleton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2004, 7:58 AM   #8
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529

The first lense is the 1.8, the second lense ($599 CAD) is the 1.4. When people are talking about the nice inexpensive lense they are referring to the 1.8. I've heard very good things about the 1.4 but as you can see it is not inexpensive so I think it is a much more unique group of photographers that get the 1.4.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2004, 8:37 AM   #9
Senior Member
NHL's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,567

The f/1.8 series II is polycarbonate... while the f/1.4 is all metal and has USM... (silent + fast and full time AF overide)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2004, 12:25 AM   #10
Super Moderator
Hards80's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046

get a good used series 1 50 1.8... (i love mine)

and keep your 17-40 L series.. i could only be so lucky to own one myself...
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:29 AM.