Would I be making a mistake if I bought this lens?

PeterT

PeterT

PeterT

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
835
Location
Solihull
Hi, I have been using the Canon 24 - 85 mm lens for a number of years now and are totally happy with the images that are produced apart from the fact that my new digital EOS loses the wide end of the lens due to the 1.6 multiplication factor.
A number of places are doing a good price on the 17 - 85mm IS USM lens. As the 24 - 85 mm lens has the same filter thread my expensive Hoya filters would fit straight on.
Would I be making a mistake making a purchase, what are the dodgy bits about this lens in comparison to the lens I have already?
Cheers, PeterT
 
the 17-85 IS is not a good lens i'm afraid, it produces soft results, i was going to buy my 30D kit with the 17-85 then decided not to, then after found out that i'd make a good choice not to. If you're happy with results from the 24-85, why change? You want something wider, save up for an ultra wide instead, get the Sigma 10-20 or if you can afford more, the Canon 10-22, both very good lenses, the sigma at around £300 which is good value. Keep your 24-85 if yur happy, you'll only regret it if you don't :)
 
I bout the 17-85 IS and it's my main walk about lens on my 350D. Unfortunately, as has been said, it's not a good lens at all, I just can't afford to replace it at the moment.

I've got the 24-85 which I use on my Eos 5 as a walk about and I think it's actually superior.
 
The 17-85 I have access to is pretty sharp throughout the zoom and have had A3+ photos made with it and had several shots in print, all looking fine. However, the relatively high apperture can be a bit of a hindrance, as can be uneven distortion at the wide end.

Have you considerd the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS?
 
I have just been looking at the 17-55 f 2.8 IS. It looks tasty and seems to get good reviews.
Regarding the 24-85 lens that I have already, the only reason for looking elsewhere is that the wide angle shots are now limited due to the 1.6 multiplication factor.
A decent circular polariser for the 17-55 costs a lot as it is a 77mm filter thread. Shame as I have the 67mm one already.

PeterT
 
17-40 is a very good lens, capture LOTS of detail and would be my choice if i weren't after a wider lens (10-20mm sigma)
 
PeterT said:
How about this one??

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Any thoughts on this one??

PeterT
Click to expand...

I have a 17-40. The more I use it, the more I love the thing. It's just, well, brilliant really! It's very sharp, well built etc etc.

Is Canon a must? There are other, cheaper alternatives such as offerings from Sigma/Tamron/Tokina (there's a little known Tokina lens, the 16-50mm f/2.8 that sounds interesting). The three non-Canon brands produce very good stuff in their own right, but getting a decent, sharp copy can be a bit of a lottery IME.

If you do get a decent copy, they can be sharper than the Canon 17-40 and other Canon equivalents (albeit they will have slower AF and maybe lesser build without environmental sealing), but you do take a risk, especially if you're buying online without the ability to try before you buy.
 
wez130 said:
the 17-85 IS is not a good lens i'm afraid, it produces soft results, i was going to buy my 30D kit with the 17-85 then decided not to, then after found out that i'd make a good choice not to. If you're happy with results from the 24-85, why change? You want something wider, save up for an ultra wide instead, get the Sigma 10-20 or if you can afford more, the Canon 10-22, both very good lenses, the sigma at around £300 which is good value. Keep your 24-85 if yur happy, you'll only regret it if you don't :)
Click to expand...


The man talks sense.

At the other end of the spectrum, I traded my lovely Tamron 200-400 in for a Sigma 170-500...

Whoops, the sigma is nowhere near as sharp. I am an idiot... I was happy with the Tamron, but the extra 100mm of reach suckered me in like a good un.

If you like it, keep it and use it.
 
Thank you for all your replies. As I said I like my 24 - 85 mm lens and have had it for years. A lot of my photos are of the great outdoors. I used to have an EOS 1N and the lens produced excellent wide angle pics. I am always on the look out for subjects that can be converted into panoramic prints so the 24 mm lens with film was just the job. Now I have a DSLR with the 1.6 crop factor I am seeing the scenes I want to capture but the lens will not stretch wide enough!
So the 17 - 40mm L lens is the best of the ones we have been discussing, no issues with dust etc?
Cheers, PeterT
 
it may be worth mentioning that to get to your 24mm equiv you'll need a 15mm lens. 17mm works out at 27 and a bit mm. seems like a petty difference but i wouldn't find 17mm wide enough on a 1.6crop body. mostly why i've never bought a 17-40L as it's a superb lens, and why i do have a sigma 10-20 :)
 
olv said:
it may be worth mentioning that to get to your 24mm equiv you'll need a 15mm lens. 17mm works out at 27 and a bit mm. seems like a petty difference but i wouldn't find 17mm wide enough on a 1.6crop body. mostly why i've never bought a 17-40L as it's a superb lens, and why i do have a sigma 10-20 :)
Click to expand...


as i mentioned in my first post ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom