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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 8, 2006, 11:38 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 10
Default

Hello everyone,

I'm considering upgrading my daily walk around lens
from the EFS 17-85 IS USM
to either the 17-40 /4 L or the 24-70/2.8 L (found a copy at my local store used in pretty much new/mint condition for an awesome price)

for a daily walk around lens; street shooting how much will I miss the IS if i upgrade over to these 2 lens.

any comments or advice about this consideration would be apperciated

thank-you
rwong2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 9, 2006, 1:03 AM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 52
Default

I think you will need to buy both lenses to replace the range of the 17-85 IS. the 17-85 IS is on my wish list and if I had it ,the only lens that I would replace it with is the Canon24-105 F/4 L IS as a walk around lens, Right now I have the sigma 18-200 DG as my walk around, not the best but it's ok, going to Hawaii in two weeks and thinking of getting one of the two.
ht770 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2006, 5:07 AM   #3
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

With the 24-70 I doubt that you'll miss the IS much at all.

But with both of them what you will undoubtedly miss is the focal length range, and particularly with the 24-70 the light weight.

I guess the real question I'd ask is why are you planning an upgrade? What is it about the 17-85 that you find lacking in a walk-around lens?
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2006, 4:19 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 10
Default

thank you for the comments

and suggestions,

My main objective is looking for a daily lens for lower light eg. indoor and street (eg. walking around dt )shooting

I do have a tripod and the 17-85 with the tripod produces sharp images.

I also have the 50/1.8 and the 85/1.8 lens which are pretty good for my objectives above except they're primes.

My primes do produce a sharper image than my 17-85 but it's kinda a condictory comment saying that I want sharp images when primes are usually better than zooms in this area and saying I'm lazy and zoom lens are much more convient for indoor and street shooting.

So trying to get the best of both worlds and seeing a used copy in mint condition at my local store made me think about considering this upgrade.

I did shoot around with this lens at the store and tested for sharpness.

Another reason for consider this lens is I have been playing around with my uncle and friend's L lens, mainly the 17-40/4 and the 70-200/4 lens and I really like the accuracy and the faster focus compared to the 17-85 (of course it's more $$ also)

thank-you for listening
rwong2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2006, 1:51 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 10
Default

Playing with my camera tonight
my 17-85 lens does have a hard time focusing in low light compared to my 85/1.8

Any experiences on the 17-40 or the 24-70 with focusing in dim light conditions?

thank-you

Raymond
rwong2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2006, 3:43 AM   #6
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

The centre AF point on the 20D is a "high-precision" point which can take advantage of lenses that are f2.8 or faster.

I doubt very much you'll see any kind of consistent difference between the 17-40 and the 17-85 in AF speed or accuracy. The 24-70 will be noticably better, but possibly just a teeny tiny bit slower than the primes. After all the more light the camera has the better it will be able to focus.

I'm fairly convinced that any difference you see with your uncle's f4 L's i.t.o. focus speed is mostly imaginary - they're better built and you may be expecting to see faster AF, but the 17-85 has the same USM(otor) as they do, and it's the camera that does the focusing.

I can't really see the 24-70 + 20D as a good "street photography" combo myself! It's a big and heavy lens - make sure you try it out on your camera first. Combined with the "KA-WHUNK YOOHOO OVER HERE I'M TAKING PHOTOS OF YOU!!" sound that the 20D shutter makes (much to my own disappointment) it's not a perfect combo. :-)

Have you tried the 28mm f1.8 prime for street photography? On the 1.6 crop it makes a nice 45m EFL, very fast AF, nice solid construction.

I'm not trying to discourage you from buying the 24-70, it's a fantastic lens, and if you like it and can get it at a bargain price then go for it. You don't really need to manufacture a reason which might then leave you disappointed afterwards. :blah:




peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2006, 4:30 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6
Default

I have the 17-85 IS and am not happy with it. It is inconsistent. I have some good pictures with it, but some bad ones too. It has some vignetting towards the open end. It does not have a sharp focus. The color is OK, but it lacks detail. I also have the 28-135 IS, and it performs much better. My choice between the two for a walk around lense would be the 24-135, even though it is not as wide. Today I ordered the Canon 24-70 L 2.8. From the reviews I have read, this is a fantastic lense. I have a Canon 10-22mm, so I have the wide end covered. I have been looking for the "perfect" walk around lense, but there are so many tradeoffs in focal length and lense quality, I have decided I'll probably have to carry at least two lenses based on what I anticipate I might shoot on any particular day.
rndrnd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2006, 12:42 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 10
Default

> The centre AF point on the 20D is a "high-precision" point which can take advantage of lenses that are f2.8 or faster.

Just to clarify, does this mean the centre is better then other points in terms of cofusing?

> I doubt very much you'll see any kind of consistent difference between the 17-40 and the 17-85 in AF speed or accuracy. The 24-70 will be noticably better, but possibly just a teeny tiny bit slower than the primes. After all the more light the camera has the better it will be able to focus.

>I'm fairly convinced that any difference you see with your uncle's f4 L's i.t.o. focus speed is mostly imaginary - they're better built and you may be expecting to see faster AF, but the 17-85 has the same USM(otor) as they do, and it's the camera that does the focusing.

Yeah i think it's due to the plecabo effect (L lens cost more = better, but usually it's true in this hobby to a certain extent)



> I can't really see the 24-70 + 20D as a good "street photography" combo myself! It's a big and heavy lens - make sure you try it out on your camera first. Combined with the "KA-WHUNK YOOHOO OVER HERE I'M TAKING PHOTOS OF YOU!!" sound that the 20D shutter makes (much to my own disappointment) it's not a perfect combo.

I've tried this lens out in the store and I really like the weight on my camera but with the battery grip honeslty i am not too sure how long I can hold onto it before cramping up =)


> Have you tried the 28mm f1.8 prime for street photography? On the 1.6 crop it makes a nice 45m EFL, very fast AF, nice solid construction.

I'm looking at something areound the 35 mm prime to complete a collection of 50 and 85 then maybe one day the 100/2.8 lens


> I'm not trying to discourage you from buying the 24-70, it's a fantastic lens, and if you like it and can get it at a bargain price then go for it. You don't really need to manufacture a reason which might then leave you disappointed afterwards.

thank-you for your comments and advice, I'm just looking around and seeing what others have to say about this option


Hi rndrnd

> I have the 17-85 IS and am not happy with it. It is inconsistent. I have some good pictures with it, but some bad ones too. It has some vignetting towards the open end. It does not have a sharp focus. The color is OK, but it lacks detail. I also have the 28-135 IS, and it performs much better. My choice between the two for a walk around lense would be the 24-135, even though it is not as wide. Today I ordered the Canon 24-70 L 2.8. From the reviews I have read, this is a fantastic lense. I have a Canon 10-22mm, so I have the wide end covered. I have been looking for the "perfect" walk around lense, but there are so many tradeoffs in focal length and lense quality, I have decided I'll probably have to carry at least two lenses based on what I anticipate I might shoot on any particular day.

Is it inconsistent for all your pictures or certain situations eg. low light/night time?
my 17-85 for day time's pretty sharp and accurate it's in lower light where I am having some problems with focusing,
about 30% of my low light pix are out of focus

(got my eyes checked recently maybe i need some new glasses =) )

I borrowed my uncle's 10-22 lens for the past week on a business trip and this is one sharp and nice lens but for now my progress in this hobby I haven't been using this focal length of lens as much. But i am impressed with this lens with the pictures I did take

I believe there's one more lens worth considering for an all purpose lens then 24-105/4 L IS USM? although there are i guess problem copies before a certain manufacturing date?

thank-you

Raymond
rwong2k is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 8:28 AM.