18-55 kit vs. 17-85 usm/is

O.K. Did search, but the engine does not like my terms!

I have had a drebel now for 6 weeks or so, and would like to improve on the kit lens. I think that the 17-85 sounds like about the perfect everyday, walkaround, hobby, family type of lens. It however (like all the good stuff!) runs a bit of cabbage. My question is, will I notice a significant improvement on contrast/sharpness with the 17 - 85? I bought by accident a cheapie 80 -200 Canon), and that seems worse (?) than the kit lens. I have to ask myself if I should pile up even more cabbage, and shoot for a 17 -40L, but a boat saying comes to mind. - "It's better to be out in a cheap boat than to be standing on shore saving up for a better one". If that makes any sense.

When I first got into this game, I knew nothing about Canon, and assumed all their stuff was under one level of quality. Boy, am I learning!

So my question: Would it be possible to regret the 17-85 is? Should I look at Tamron/ Sigma solutions?

With the exception of the 50mm prime, this would be about the only other lens my finance officer will allow, and I may have to sneak around at that.

Ok..my experience is Quite similar..

18-55..it was Good lens (notice the past tense)..did it's job- I began to find it limiting and so I read and read and I tried out the Sigma and Tamron...
but I too knew nothing of the Canon line nor did I know what L was etc etc..
So, I bought the 12-24 Sigma and Tamron 28-70 (75) Can't recall.

Tamorn was ok..but I found myself needing more room..as it was NOT wide enough..I found it not that sharp but decent...anyhow..

Well,I also had the Canon 75-300 EF standard lens..which was MUCH sharper than the Tam. so I wondered if going with Canon would be better..

The Sigma 12-24..well..it basically was a terrible lens..and I sent it to Sigma..and they sent it back to me telling me it was fine..well it was super soft and well..bad.

Long story (could be longer) I sold them both. Just sold them as soon as I realized that nothing would make my 20D happier than it's own knd..so Canon it was.

I just got sick of the not wide enough Tamron and got sick of the soft baby Sigma..( build quality of the Sigma is outstanding though-I have to say.)
Sold the 18-55 too.
Bought 17-85 Amazing.
and some other Canon lenses and I would not trade them for anything.
--
Tario.
http://www.pbase.com/tario

Have a look at some of my albums. Recent ones like "knus" ( http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/knus/ ) and "salzburg" ( http://wwwia.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/ht05pc ) are all or mostly with the 17-85IS. All albums up to July 9, 2004 are with the kit lens. All albums between July 10 and December 1 are with the Sigma 18-125. After that there is variation, but recently I have been using mostly the Canon 17-85IS, and for low light pictures with people also the Tamron 17-35 and the Canon 50mm f1.8.

frieght dog said:

O.K. Did search, but the engine does not like my terms!

I have had a drebel now for 6 weeks or so, and would like to
improve on the kit lens. I think that the 17-85 sounds like about
the perfect everyday, walkaround, hobby, family type of lens. It
however (like all the good stuff!) runs a bit of cabbage. My
question is, will I notice a significant improvement on
contrast/sharpness with the 17 - 85? I bought by accident a cheapie
80 -200 Canon), and that seems worse (?) than the kit lens. I have
to ask myself if I should pile up even more cabbage, and shoot for
a 17 -40L, but a boat saying comes to mind. - "It's better to be
out in a cheap boat than to be standing on shore saving up for a
better one". If that makes any sense.

When I first got into this game, I knew nothing about Canon, and
assumed all their stuff was under one level of quality. Boy, am I
learning!

So my question: Would it be possible to regret the 17-85 is? Should
I look at Tamron/ Sigma solutions?

With the exception of the 50mm prime, this would be about the only
other lens my finance officer will allow, and I may have to sneak
around at that.

Click to expand...

--
Still learning to use the DRebel (only around 14.000 shots)
Public pictures at http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/

That second one should say http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/ht05pc/ but there is no edit function after pressing "post"...

Paul De Bra said:

frieght dog said:

O.K. Did search, but the engine does not like my terms!

I have had a drebel now for 6 weeks or so, and would like to
improve on the kit lens. I think that the 17-85 sounds like about
the perfect everyday, walkaround, hobby, family type of lens. It
however (like all the good stuff!) runs a bit of cabbage. My
question is, will I notice a significant improvement on
contrast/sharpness with the 17 - 85? I bought by accident a cheapie
80 -200 Canon), and that seems worse (?) than the kit lens. I have
to ask myself if I should pile up even more cabbage, and shoot for
a 17 -40L, but a boat saying comes to mind. - "It's better to be
out in a cheap boat than to be standing on shore saving up for a
better one". If that makes any sense.

When I first got into this game, I knew nothing about Canon, and
assumed all their stuff was under one level of quality. Boy, am I
learning!

So my question: Would it be possible to regret the 17-85 is? Should
I look at Tamron/ Sigma solutions?

With the exception of the 50mm prime, this would be about the only
other lens my finance officer will allow, and I may have to sneak
around at that.

Click to expand...

--
Still learning to use the DRebel (only around 14.000 shots)
Public pictures at http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/

Click to expand...

--
Still learning to use the DRebel (only around 14.000 shots)
Public pictures at http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/

the Kit lens is bettter in some respects than the 17-85mm

Kit lens suffers less CA/colour fringing can focus closer for macros, has a flatter field of focus, the 17-85mm has softer corners, and the 17-85mm vignettes more, and it distorts more too at wide angle, so there are some sacrifices to be made for the extra mm at telephoto on the 17-85mm.

However, the 17-85mm is sharper when stopped down to f8 and beyond and exhibits a tad better contrast and of course has IS. You will notice that the 17-85mm picks up more far distance detail.

my crude testing
http://www.wan.st/public/18-55mm_vs_17-85mm/
some other persons testing
http://www.pbase.com/bstarling/lenstest

optically the difference is subtle at larger apertures.

Generally I feel the public consensus is the Tamron 28-75mm is better in the optics department and so too the Sigma 18-50mm but they 'appear' to have focusing issues on some samples if you get a bad one, the Tamron 'I think' has a design flaw with certain Canon bodies with focal lengths below 35mm - but you need to verify that on the long Tamron have a got a good copy / does it need re-calibration threads.

Most of my gallery is also with the 17-85IS..

It is a great walk around lkens because it is quite wide and has a very good reach..

You may get lucky with teh Sigmas and Tamron too...I cannot speak for all of them..but I just like using the Canon gear...
17-40L is my next glass..gotta try that..
--
Tario.
http://www.pbase.com/tario

You will find that here are many lenses to choose from and it's all about compromises. You have to decide what is important for you and then find the best option. This means thinking about the flexibility of zooms verses primes, fast apertures verses slower, weight, size, cost. You will find that Canon makes many very good lenses, as does Sigma and Tamron. And they all make some dogs. In my opinion, the kit lens is not a dog.

Can you be a bit more specific about what you want to achieve when you say 'improve on the kit lens' ?

p.s. The biggest surprise for some is the weight factor with many of the high quality zooms. The kit lens is just about the lightest lens you can buy.

--
Gareth.

http://www.pbase.com/sgingram

Thanks guys!

It was the pic of the dog in this thread that really got me thinking about increasing the sharpness/contrast of the kit lens. I saw that dog, and thought - that was some lens:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=13610506

I do have some good shots, but I have quite a few that appear soft. I realize some may be operator error, but eliminating those, shot at faster speeds, I still have quite a few that appear soft.

The tamron used in the dog shot seems a) hard to get now, and b) problematic.

I assume the L lens (17-40?) would at least be as sharp as the Tamron?

Just don't think that the 17-40 would have enough range.

It's the comprimise! Someone has to make an allaround do everything perfectly lens, made of un-obtainum. I'd pay a buck for that!

What I read ... You buy 10 copy of the same lens .. you have 10 different results.

I have saw 17-40L worse than kit lens ...

Peaple said this lens better ... to me .. we don't know if they had a good copy or not.

Quality construction seem to be a real problem. We pay 1000$ for a lens and we had to cross fingers and hope to get a sharp one!!

Lens should have quality test before to be release to the market. In controled light with pattern or something like that.

Those camera and lens are supposed to be in the professional category. Back focus, front focus ... no sense for the price we pay!

frieght dog said:

O.K. Did search, but the engine does not like my terms!

I have had a drebel now for 6 weeks or so, and would like to
improve on the kit lens. I think that the 17-85 sounds like about
the perfect everyday, walkaround, hobby, family type of lens. It
however (like all the good stuff!) runs a bit of cabbage. My
question is, will I notice a significant improvement on
contrast/sharpness with the 17 - 85?

Click to expand...

17-85mm:





--
'I can resist anything but temptation'

Paul De Bra said:

That second one should say
http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/ht05pc/ but there is no edit
function after pressing "post"...

Click to expand...

Paul -

Great gallery! The opening panorama is just terrific - really beautiful.

Got a quick question for you - regarding Image 38 on page 2 in that gallery. The buildings are tipping in - you have lots of other pictures throughout this gallery like that too. Image 54 on page 3 looks like the walls in the church are falling in.

Is this vingetting (not sure I know what that really is) - or what is this? I am very interested in this lens - I love to shoot wide and all I have right now that is wide like this is the kit lens. But I don't recall seeing anything this pronounced with my kit lens.

So what is this? Can it be corrected? Thanks for sharing your great gallery and for any info you can give me on this lens.

jshetley

Nice! What camera is that?
Do you find yourself using the IS all the time, or only when you are low light?

jshetley said:

Is this vingetting (not sure I know what that really is) -

Click to expand...

Vignetting shows up as darker corners and is caused by the image circle that the lens casts onto the sensor/film is too small. It's not easy to rectify in the design without higher costs, therefore even expensive lenses can have it.

jshetley said:

So what is this? Can it be corrected? Thanks for sharing your
great gallery and for any info you can give me on this lens.

Click to expand...

What you see here is distortion caused by not pointing the center of the lens at, or close to, a 90 degree angle at things.

The shorter the focal length the more it'll distort the image when deviating from the 90 degree optimum. If you point it up like here, buildings tip over, when you point it level, but at a left or right angle at a house the buiding doesn't tip, but you'll see a similar result in a horizontal plane. Aim a very short lens from the center of the room towards a corner, the ceiling gets really weird.

So the secret to prevent this kind of destortion is: Do not aim a lens of short focal length at a too great an angle at things. Things, however, do tend to not always co-operate at the same moment. ;o)

Arjen.

Thanks for the helpful answers! I have seen those dark corners in some pictures before - had no idea what they were called.

And it is really nice to know that those tipping buildings and such are easily corrected. I was a little worried when I saw it on so many of the pictures in that gallery. So this is definately not a lens problem - but a user "issue". I hate to say problem - because that may be the effect that Paul was going for in these pics.

Thanks again.........

About the same quality like the kit ( ok , a tad sharper at f8 and above , but nothing to write home about ) ; about 3 times as heavy , twice as big , IS non value for me , slow lens , 5 times as expensive.

No go . It is a marketing bluf , and I really question it's value for a non professional photographer...

Keep the kit and geta tamron 28-75/2.8 or a sigma 24-70 2.8 . At least you end up with some fast glass , useable indoors and in low light...And with some change in the pocket.

my 2 cents

if I understand the answer correctly, it's not "user issue" problem, just a wide angle lens problem. I see it with my 28mm lens on my film SLR (Nikon 2020) where tall buildings seem to tip towards me. 17mm on the 350d is equivalent to 28mm on film cameras.

jshetley said:

So this is definately not a
lens problem - but a user "issue". I hate to say problem - because
that may be the effect that Paul was going for in these pics.

Thanks again.........

Click to expand...

if I understand the answer correctly, it's not user "issue" problem, just a wide angle lens problem. I see it with my 28mm lens on my film SLR (Nikon 2020) where tall buildings seem to tip towards me. 17mm on the 350d is equivalent to 28mm on film cameras.

frieght dog said:

Nice! What camera is that?
Do you find yourself using the IS all the time, or only when you
are low light?

Click to expand...

That was taken with the 20d and the 17-85.

I leave the IS on all the time.

I've thought about selling the 17-85 and purchasing the 17-40L, but I just keep coming back to the fact I don't want to give up the range, IS and generally very sharp image I get with this lens.

--
'I can resist anything but temptation'

Torque124 said:

About the same quality like the kit ( ok , a tad sharper at f8 and
above , but nothing to write home about )

Click to expand...

O.K. I haven't used the kit lens. But.....

Marketing bluff? Tad sharper? (guess the kit lens must be pretty sharp)

To each his own. Guess Canon has me fooled!





(you can see the dirt in my son's nail!)

--
'I can resist anything but temptation'

What lens was used to take those pictures of your son? thanks Frank