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

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 15, 2005, 1:24 PM   #1
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 10

I have a Tamron 18-200, which I love for the convenience of travel but I sometimes find lacking in sharpness. I just picked up a 70-300 DO IS zoom, so I have my tele needs covered. I'm thinking of replacing the wider end of the Tamron with a 17-85 or 17-40, and am wondering whether anyone has compared that lens (the 18-200) against either of these? I'm certain the 17-40 would blow it away -- would the 17-85 as well?
JOJOJAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 15, 2005, 2:13 PM   #2
Super Moderator
Hards80's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046

considering the other lenses at your disposal, and the fact that you primarily want it for the wide end the 17-40L is definately the choice.. it offers less distortion, and boosts considerably better corner sharpness.. the color and contrast is also a little better as well..

regards, -dustin
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2005, 2:33 PM   #3
Senior Member
NHL's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,567

I'm certain the 17-40 would blow it away -- would the 17-85 as well?
According to the MTF charts, the 'Digital' lenses usually are sharper than their full frame counter part so yes the EFS 17-85 is sharper technically (as are most other digital lenses only... Just check their MTFs)

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2005, 9:17 AM   #4
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 175

I've owned all three (well, I had the Sigma 18-200)... I sold the Sigma 18-200 quickly as it was just disappointing looking at the pictures from this lens after experiencing better quality from the Canon lenses. I did also end up selling my 17-40 because of financial concerns. Although it was a joy to use, the 17-85IS just got a lot more use because of it's range and IS... On a few shots from the 17-85, if I closely examined them, I could see where the 17-40 could have done better (particularly coser to 17mm), but the difference wasn't enough to justify keeping both, when I really needed the money.

But as I get more serious about lanscape photography, I plan on getting another 17-40 or perhaps the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 for those wide angle shots that really matter. (I just with the Sigma had a red ring!)

Hope this helps.
ChrisDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2005, 9:38 AM   #5
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 78

If your talking about sharpness and contrast the 17-85 IS is as good as it gets in that range. The 17-40 would probably be a better choice if you intend to shoot almost exclusively at the wide end, the fixed f4 is also welcome.I've owned both. I don't have the 17-40 anymore but it's a fine lens. I own two 17-85's and the IS is great and compensates a great deal for the slower f stop.

The extra reach and optical quality of the ef-s 17-85 is hard to beat and it's as sharp and you could want from a zoom lens. Quite frankly I don't think your getting much of an increase at the wide end with either of these lense's. If wide is your thing I'd go for more than a one millimeter increase.

tmumolo 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 5:44 AM.