Does anyone here own and use both of these lenses? I am interested in your observations as far as comparing build quality, sharpness, usefulness for certain applications, value for price paid etc. You can find all kinds of specs and info on each lens, but just wanted to get someones real hands on experiences and feelings as to which you have found more useful.(Apart from the obvious differences such as IS, L glass, focal length etc). My daughter needs a fairly wide walk around lens for 20D and I don't own either of these.
I own both. In my view they are both good, but for quite different purposes.
The build quality of my 17-40 is superior to that of my 17-85. In fact, I just sent my 17-85 in for adjustment because the zoom ring was binding. However, the 17-85 (apart from that needed adjustment) has decent quality - just not as solid and smooth as the 17-40.
The 17-40 is sharper, especially near the corners, and it vignettes a lot less than the 17-85, which shows noticable vignetting in some circumstances such as large apertures. However, the 17-85 can be quite sharp in the center, especially at around f8 or so. All in all, unless you are going to make very large prints, the 17-85 is pretty decent.
The 17-85 exhibits significant barrel distortion. You'll notice it on shots of, for example, tall buildings or landscapes with horizontal lines (water or horizon) at the bottom of the frame. You can correct this in Photoshop, and it is not all that noticable in many shots.
For a one-size-fits-all solution that will cover most situations with one lens, the 17-85 is a fine lens. It is small and light and the IS lets you get shots in lower light than you might expect. With careful aperture selection it can be quite sharp. The zoom range can cover most needs - I used this lens alone on a number of backpacking trips, and I appreciated the light weight and ability to avoid lens changes.
If you daughter is a very serious photographer and either doesn't need anything longer than 40mm or will get additional longer lenses then the 17-40 could be a good choice. Otherwise I would lean toward the 17-85.
(You didn't mention it, so I'll mention that the 17-85mm is an "EF-S" lens, meaning that it only works on the 20D and the Rebel and possibly future 1.6 crop factor Canon cameras. It cannot be used on a full frame or 35mm camera. The 17-40 will work on full-frame cameras, such as the 5D.)
I had the 17-85 as my only lens for quite some time. It is a good performer for the money and probably the best all around one lens solution I've owned in a lot of years doing this. Dan has the right of it above here. Look here for some real world type shots with this lens. There's some in B&W in another gallery there.
Thanks guys, for the feedback. I guess you may have confirmed my one suspicion .... the quality issue. (i.e. zoom ring binding). This lens will probably be used for mostly family pictures and grandkid pics, but it sounds like the 17-40 would be the better choice for her when it comes down to reliability and quality.
after reading post after post and review after review, i have come to the following conclusion - if one is after a two lens kit (or three, with the 50mm 1.8 thrown in),
there are basically 2 alternatives:
1) 17-85 and 70-300 is, or;
2) 17-40 and 70-200/4L
both are equally fine options. it all depends what kind of person one is. option #1 is the person who loves his/her toyota camry. reliable. safe. gets from point A to point B with a minimum of fuss in reasonable comfort and with good gas mileage. an excellent value.
option #2 - well, that's the bmw or mercedes aficionado. a little more zip. a little more class. arguably built better. to the car lover, definitely more fun. a toyota, although admired for what it is, would not be right for this person.
is this fair? i have the 350d, the kit lens, 50mm 1.8 and 28-105. am agonizing between option #1 and option #2. i admit i am an option #2 kind of guy. then again, maybe i will just get an 85mm 1.8 and stop obsessing.
I'm this kind of guy. The other has a hole between 40 and 70. This one goes to 300. L's ar cool and classy and most excellent. I beat the equipment up in the truck I drive for a living and my stuff seems to still be working. Both of these lenses are good performers for the bucks too.
are you familiar with the 28-105. if so, is the 17-85 a much better lens. i am satisfied with the 28-105, but admit i want more (color, sharpness, etc)
Never played with the 28-105. I got the camera with the 17-85 and just got the 70-300. If I had more color and sharpness I don't know what I'd do with it.
I have both, and they aren't really interchangeable, kinda like comparing apples to oranges. The 17-85 is an incredible all-around travel lens. I have this lens attached to my Rebel XT and with me at all times, for when unexpected photo opportunities come up when driving home from work.. I love landscape photography, but a tripod isn't always feasible. The IS can take the place of a tripod in some situations, and the range is very useful when you can only carry one lens... When I travel, the 17-85 will often be the only lens I bring (plus the 50mm 1.8)
The 17-40 on the other hand is specifically geared towards high quality wide angle shots. When I am out shooting landscapes with a tripod, the 17-40 is usually attached.
If I am shooting people, neither of these lenses is fast enough. I like natural light and background blur for people shots, niether of which these lenses are particutarly suited for.
Dale wrote: "Thanks guys, for the feedback. I guess you may have confirmed my one suspicion .... the quality issue. (i.e. zoom ring binding). This lens will probably be used for mostly family pictures and grandkid pics, but it sounds like the 17-40 would be the better choice for her when it comes down to reliability and quality."
Dale, that's not the impression I meant to create in my answer to your question. For family and grandkid pictures I think the 17-85 is likely to be the better choice.
Sure, the 17-40 has "better reliability and quality" (it is equal to Canon's best lenses) but the 17-85 is no slouch here either, and I think that it would be a more practical lens for the use you describe.
Either lens will be fine. The real question is not "which is best" but "which is best for the use I have in mind." For family and grandkid pictures the 17-85 is a great lens.
I use my 17-85 over my 17-40 for pictures at family gatherings. My second choice for this use is my 50mm f1.4 lens. The 17-40 is my _third_ choice for this type for photography.
(My lenses include the 17-85 EF-S, the 17-40 f4L, the 50 f1.4, and the 70-200 f4L.)
To emphasize what Dan and I have said, the 17-40 isn't a great "people lens", due to it's wide focal length and slow aperture.
To expand, consider this: The most universally accepted best affordable portrait lens from Canon is the 85mm 1.8 lens. This is because of it's medium/long focal length, and fast aperture, niether of which the 17-40 has...The 17-40 isa great landscape or wide-angle lens, suitable for stationary subjects, not for zooming in on people. Wide angle lenses usually distort close subject matter, which can be offending to human faces. Faces look better when photographed by a longer lens from further away.
Hoagie,
I have the 17-85, 17-40, and the kit lens.
The 17-40 is no doubt a great piece of glass. But,..., the 17-85 has better utility, and can get sharper results because of the IS.
We all shoot our own style, and often have a favorite focal length. I just went through all of my favorite pics, and found a great number to be between 28 and 40mm. So, I bought the 35, 2.0 as my walkaround, with perhaps the kit lens in my pocket. Remember, walkaround lenses need to be the right size, so you are they don't drag you down.
Bottom line, go for good utility in a zoom, get a nice sharp, light, small, and cheap prime that matches your most common focal length.
The 17-85 is more versatile and produces nice pics. By comparison I can't say the same for the 18-55 lens so the 17-85 is clealry better. The 17-40 has an edge over teh 17-85 in sharpness, contrast and color saturation but I find it a bit too short for all-around use. If only it went to 60mm...
17-40 is a great lens that will work on all EOS cameras, the 17-85 IS is a nice walkabout lens on EF-S compatable cameras but will not work on other cameras if you decide to upgrade to fullframe in the future.
