Worth changing to the EF-S 17-85 ?

9designs2

9designs2

9designs2

Soldato
Joined
5 Jan 2003
Posts
3,523
Location
Somewhere in the middle
I have a 400D as a second body, (to my 5D Mk1) it has the original 18-55 lens on... Was thinking to pick up a EFS 17-85 IS for bit better range and quality.
Tend use the camera as a "point and shoot" on holidays when I don't have chance or time to carry the 5D around and all the kit...And it's cheaper to lose !

Last year used the 400D with my 17-40L, .... but the tele end is bit limiting for a one lens walk about solution.

Or any other single lens options to consider, remember this a secondary system, so no point blowing a big budget,,,, the 15-85 looks a bit to pricey for what I will use it for.... Wide end is more important to me than the long end.
 
I actually have one and wouldn't really say it was particularly cheap or nasty. Build quality is certainly well above original 18-55mm kit lens levels - better than the newer 18-55mm IS and 55-250mm IS lenses too.

It focuses fast and the IS is very useful to have. Also discovered that it's wider at 17mm than a friends 16-35mm f2.8 L @ its 16mm setting.

A good solid walk about lens.

gt
 
how about the tamron 17-50 (non vc), its easily the best value for money lens in my bag, super sharp, great contrast and colours. if you need a little more range the tamron 28-75 is meant to be superb.
 
It's not cheap and nasty. Fairly solid and well built, and it's quite nice around 35mm to the tele end. But at the wide end it's notoriously soft and chromatic aberration is bad :( If you want to blow your pictures up at all I'd avoid it, as the CA in particular really sticks out.
Mine replaced an 18-55. I wish I'd gone for the Tamron 17-50 tbh.
 
This

adamau5 said:
how about the tamron 17-50 (non vc), its easily the best value for money lens in my bag, super sharp, great contrast and colours. if you need a little more range the tamron 28-75 is meant to be superb.
Click to expand...

A fantastic lens for the money (17-50 non VC that is - nowehere near as keen on the other).
 
Last edited:
A different viewpoint. Ditch the 400D, and grab a couple of prime lenses for use on the 5D. So the weight increase of the 5D is made up for by the weight savings on the lens. If you're wondering about weight, check the weight of the 35mm F2 and 85mm F1.8. Sure, they won't have the flexibility of a zoom, so no you won't take as many photos. Having said that, the results on the photos you DO take will be ace. So a lower number overall, but a better ratio of "killer shots".
 
I've got the 17-85mm lens, which came in a kit with my 50D and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.

The 17-85 can be a bit of a mixed bag - at the 17mm end it exhibits chromatic abberation and noticable barrel distortion. In the mid range Chromatic abberation is minimal but starts creeping in again at the 85mm range.

It can be a little soft in the corners at wide angle however the centre of the lens can produce some really sharp images, particularly when stopped down a little.

It is reasonably well built and light. The Image stabilisation is the Mark 3 version and you can get usable shots 3 stops slower than a non IS lens in the same light. It focuses quickly as well.

The front element does not rotate as you focus or zoom in/out so if you fit a Polarising filter or Graduated ND filter you don't have to reorientate the filter since it will be in the position you set it at.

It is a fair walkaround lens, but you get what you pay for.

The advantage is there are loads on the second hand market so prices can be quite reasonable. I would however try before you buy.
 
I agree with Andy90, a second hand 17-85mm is worth buying, but not at a new price, as you can get better even if means adding a few extra quids.
I use a Sigma 17-70 DC ( non OS HSM ) lens which cost me new apx £200 apx 4 years ago.
This IMO is better than the 17-85, though I would like to get the 18-135 so I do not have to carry my zoom lens around with on holiday.
 
Last edited:
Some interesting ideas !!!..... In summary 28 isn't wide enough and 50 isn't long enough.
The point of the 400 is it's a cheap walk about camera for holidays etc where I don't want or have the time to take "photographs" with the 5D.... (I have 17-40L, 24-105L, 50 F1.4 and 75-300 IS)
Thanks for the heads up on CA issues on the 17-85... kind of kills that one for me.... If I get something good it ends up being printed to A3 on my i9950.

Tysonator those Sigma 17-85 or 18-135 sound interesting options...... if all else fails I'll just take the 17-40L and try and walk a bit closer !!! ;)
 
It's not the best lens in the world but is a useful step up from the 18-55IS kit lens in quality, range and the addition of USM.

I've just picked up a used one for £150 for the gf to use with my old 40D and think it's worth that tbh for a decent, flexible walkabout.
 
Have you considered a Sigma 17-70 (non OS)? Can be had fairly cheap 2nd hand, I have had one for a few years now with my 40D. Compared to a friends 17-85mm I think it's a better lens.
 
Ranger said:
Have you considered a Sigma 17-70 (non OS)? Can be had fairly cheap 2nd hand, I have had one for a few years now with my 40D. Compared to a friends 17-85mm I think it's a better lens.
Click to expand...

I agree, I use a Sigma 17-70 DC ( non OS HSM ) and I think this is better than a lot of the standard canon kit / walk about lens.
If would get the 17-70 OS HSM only is a used one comes along at a decent price. :)
 
Little update, arrived in the post today from the 'bay was a Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 DC lens. Boxed, paper work, caps and hood included. It's in very nice condition, glass unmarked, focus nice and swift in low light on the 400D, impressed how close it will focus !!..... Will try it in the daylight to see how sharp it is tomorrow....
Thanks for the recommendations, seems to be just what I was after to pep up the 400D holiday camera :D
 
I have a 17-85, and my only complaint with it, if i had to have one, is that a lower aperture would be nice (f4, vs f2.8 on 17-40)

I love it as a walkabout lens, and saying the above, if i ever feel the need to throw something stupidly out-of-focus, i just whip out the 50mm f1.8.


Dont forget to post up some results from your new 17-40, it'd be nice to see how it performs wide open :-D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom