-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
18-55 kit vs. 17-85 usm/is
- Thread starter frieght dog
- Start date
havepixel
Active member
I have the 17-40L and I love it--it's on my 20D about 90% of the time. I've played with a friend's 17-85IS and it's quite sharp, the colors are great and the zoom range can't be beat. For me, though, the 17-40L works better since it's compatible with my Elan II (film) and I plan to upgrade to a 1.3x or 1x crop DSLR (Canon of course), which probably won't be EF-S compatible.
Arjen van Andel
Leading Member
It's a lens 'problem' that gets more pronounced at short focal lengths; in that sense its a user-issue.
By not photographing objects at great angles (keeping your camera level; pointing at the -often invisible- horizon and at a more or less 90 degree angle at walls) you can keep it under control. Use portrait orientation to get the tops of buildings into the frame, if necessary.
Arjen.
Torque124
Veteran Member
you can see that with any lens ,man .And you have a couple of megapixels extra , so resolving power is better on the 20D.
If you want me to say the 17-85 is better just so you won't admit it is money wasted , I'll say it , it is a better lens .
But for me , at any point in my photography "adventure" , will not be of value. I rather have spent the money on a fast lens like 2.8 constant aperture ...
But it's my 2 cents ; I am not at home to show you what the kit photos look like..
Have you sharpened that photo when you showed the close up ? It surely looks like...
cheers
If you want me to say the 17-85 is better just so you won't admit it is money wasted , I'll say it , it is a better lens .
But for me , at any point in my photography "adventure" , will not be of value. I rather have spent the money on a fast lens like 2.8 constant aperture ...
But it's my 2 cents ; I am not at home to show you what the kit photos look like..
Have you sharpened that photo when you showed the close up ? It surely looks like...
cheers
ericN2
Veteran Member
Lot of CAs on that 17-40 pic isn't there !I have the 17-40L and I love it--it's on my 20D about 90% of the
time. I've played with a friend's 17-85IS and it's quite sharp, the
colors are great and the zoom range can't be beat. For me, though,
the 17-40L works better since it's compatible with my Elan II
(film) and I plan to upgrade to a 1.3x or 1x crop DSLR (Canon of
course), which probably won't be EF-S compatible.
Bit much for a lens of that price don't you think ?
--
ericN
8989jhjhjh
Forum Enthusiast
If you think the 17-85IS is heavy or 3 times as heavy as the 18-55, and that ths is bad or negative....what do you have to say about the Tam.28-75..I had that lens and sold it-A LOT heavier than the 17-85..I mean a lot..not even the same ball park in wieght..
..It was just NOT wide enough for a carry around..
And the Sigma lenses are built like tanks..now those are heavy..
The 17-85 is so light in comparison that when I bought it, I kind of felt ...well..like where's the lens??
Light beyond belief...actually too light... I like a little bit of weght on my camera..
--
Tario.
http://www.pbase.com/tario
..It was just NOT wide enough for a carry around..
And the Sigma lenses are built like tanks..now those are heavy..
The 17-85 is so light in comparison that when I bought it, I kind of felt ...well..like where's the lens??
Light beyond belief...actually too light... I like a little bit of weght on my camera..
--
Tario.
http://www.pbase.com/tario
Paul De Bra
Veteran Member
It's not the 17-85's fault. Any wide angle lens will give you the same. The problem is that I'm too short to take these pictures with the camera aimed horizontally. Some of these buildings are 30 to 60 meters tall. So I would have to be between 15 and 30 meters from the ground to take these pictures horizontally. Unfortunately I'm less than 2 meters tall and there was no easy access to another building from where I could shoot.
You can correct perspective in Photoshop. It's pretty easy and will give you the illusion of having shot from high up. I prefer to leave the images as they are. (I did correct distortion with PTlens, but that's the lens distortion, not the perspective.)
Still learning to use the DRebel (only around 14.000 shots)
Public pictures at http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/
You can correct perspective in Photoshop. It's pretty easy and will give you the illusion of having shot from high up. I prefer to leave the images as they are. (I did correct distortion with PTlens, but that's the lens distortion, not the perspective.)
--
Still learning to use the DRebel (only around 14.000 shots)
Public pictures at http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/
havepixel
Active member
CA or overexposed highlights? I can send you a crop.
v_i_n
Active member
Digitally speaking, it is a great lens. The IS works really well. This lens (all lenses), of course, has limitations and is not designed to stop motion (I use my second lens EF 70-200 2.8) particularly in a very lowlight situation. On the other hand, I find that the CA/distortion issues are nothing less but a drama. As other lenses do, I get CA/distortion occasionally when using wide angle (17mm). However, it is not a big deal since we are in digital photography (not film); this means I am digitally capable correcting those issues not even a 10 sec. worth of time (that’s me, not sure with others). So going back to the topic, I would say that 17-85IS is absolutely better than the kit lens. With this lens, I get 100% sharp pictures at all times.
Here are some real examples where the 17-85IS power (often overlooked) can be applied.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=13472902
Cheers,
Vin
Here are some real examples where the 17-85IS power (often overlooked) can be applied.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=13472902
Cheers,
Vin
Paul De Bra
Veteran Member
The IS is the strongest asset of the 17-85. If IS is "non value" for you then you'd be a fool to spend this much money on that lens.
It's not a marketing bluf. It is all about convenience of the range and the USM and the IS. The 17-85IS has great value for a non-professional photographer. It probably has much less value for a professional.
A lot of amateurs (like me) come from a P&S camera. They are not used to extreme shallow DOF. With the 17-85IS you have the best you can get to achieve a large DOF. Keep the aperture small (large f number) to get more DOF. A fast lens without IS will leave people like me unsatisfied in low light situations because the images will have too shallow DOF.
Fast glass is not the answer to all low light problems. I do appreciate my fast glass for the situations where a high shutter speed is mandatory to stop motion. But for situations like visiting churches and museums the 17-85IS is the lens to have. You need the wide angle and you need the IS there. Fast glass doesn't work well there. I have tried. I have shot with the Tamron 17-35 at 17mm f2.8 and the DOF is just too shallow.
Still learning to use the DRebel (only around 14.000 shots)
Public pictures at http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/
It's not a marketing bluf. It is all about convenience of the range and the USM and the IS. The 17-85IS has great value for a non-professional photographer. It probably has much less value for a professional.
A lot of amateurs (like me) come from a P&S camera. They are not used to extreme shallow DOF. With the 17-85IS you have the best you can get to achieve a large DOF. Keep the aperture small (large f number) to get more DOF. A fast lens without IS will leave people like me unsatisfied in low light situations because the images will have too shallow DOF.
Fast glass is not the answer to all low light problems. I do appreciate my fast glass for the situations where a high shutter speed is mandatory to stop motion. But for situations like visiting churches and museums the 17-85IS is the lens to have. You need the wide angle and you need the IS there. Fast glass doesn't work well there. I have tried. I have shot with the Tamron 17-35 at 17mm f2.8 and the DOF is just too shallow.
--
Still learning to use the DRebel (only around 14.000 shots)
Public pictures at http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/
but an expensive upgrade if you are shooting mostly moving objects.
It is up to the individual user to decide what type of shooting they will do.
I wish there were a 17-85 f2.8 lens. Since I shoot mostly my kids, i'd rather have the speed than IS.
It is up to the individual user to decide what type of shooting they will do.
I wish there were a 17-85 f2.8 lens. Since I shoot mostly my kids, i'd rather have the speed than IS.
v_i_n
Active member
I use the 17-85IS too even when the subject is moving with no problem. That is because I never forget to use one of my camera's great features—higher ISO settings 1600 or 3200. My setup seems to work fine, and I get 100% sharp pictures always as I only use IS lenses: 17-85IS and 70-200 2.8 IS.
Moving subject is less problematic with 20D’s noiseless higher ISO feature. The challenge now lies with camera shakes that normally spoil shots no matter how quality the lens is. As a result, we either use tripod (most of the time), use a faster lens (e.g. large aperture 2.8 & above) and sacrifice DOF, or let the IS and camera setting (high ISO) do the job. While in digital photography majority of issues (e.g. CA, distortion, noise, etc) are fixable, it will be impossible to fix blurry/soft pictures caused by camera shakes including the effect of SDOF.
Regards,
vin
Moving subject is less problematic with 20D’s noiseless higher ISO feature. The challenge now lies with camera shakes that normally spoil shots no matter how quality the lens is. As a result, we either use tripod (most of the time), use a faster lens (e.g. large aperture 2.8 & above) and sacrifice DOF, or let the IS and camera setting (high ISO) do the job. While in digital photography majority of issues (e.g. CA, distortion, noise, etc) are fixable, it will be impossible to fix blurry/soft pictures caused by camera shakes including the effect of SDOF.
Regards,
vin
havepixel
Active member
Yep. Show me a 17-85 USM f/2.8L IS and I'll gladly whip out my credit card.
v_i_n
Active member
no text
Torque124
Veteran Member
the fact that this lens you are all so proud of , cost double than what it's worth. Easy.
If it was selling new for 500AUD , let's say 600 tops , I would buy it tomorrow . No , make that today ,as I am 5 minutes drive from the all the main camera shops in the city. But for over 1000 AUD ? gotta be crazy , or really loaded and have money to throw out the window.
And I reckon the shalow DOF is the greatest asset of SLR cameras...
cheers
If it was selling new for 500AUD , let's say 600 tops , I would buy it tomorrow . No , make that today ,as I am 5 minutes drive from the all the main camera shops in the city. But for over 1000 AUD ? gotta be crazy , or really loaded and have money to throw out the window.
And I reckon the shalow DOF is the greatest asset of SLR cameras...
cheers
Paul De Bra
Veteran Member
For me the low noise is the greatest asset of an slr camera.
If there was a P&S camera with the same sharp pictures and low noise and a nice zoom range I would not have bought an slr.
The 17-85IS is very valuable for me because it allows for a larger DOF at slower shutter speed. Shallow DOF is something I rarely want.
As for price, I can easily compare the Canon 17-85 with the Sigma 18-125 because I had both. Optically these two lenses are very close. The price, originally around $600 versus $300, now closer to $500 versus $250, indicates that you pay $250 to $300 in order to have USM and IS. When I compare that with what you pay extra to have IS on the 75-300 and the 70-200 then I think the price for USM and IS is a bit high but not unreasonable (The 75-300 has cheaper IS, the much heavier 70-200 has much more expensive IS).
My clear conclusion is that the 17-85 only costs double of what it is worth if you value the IS at $0. That is simply not fair. Half the price of the 17-85 only gets you a Sigma 18-125. You cannot expect to get USM and IS thrown in for free.
Still learning to use the DRebel (only around 14.000 shots)
Public pictures at http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/
If there was a P&S camera with the same sharp pictures and low noise and a nice zoom range I would not have bought an slr.
The 17-85IS is very valuable for me because it allows for a larger DOF at slower shutter speed. Shallow DOF is something I rarely want.
As for price, I can easily compare the Canon 17-85 with the Sigma 18-125 because I had both. Optically these two lenses are very close. The price, originally around $600 versus $300, now closer to $500 versus $250, indicates that you pay $250 to $300 in order to have USM and IS. When I compare that with what you pay extra to have IS on the 75-300 and the 70-200 then I think the price for USM and IS is a bit high but not unreasonable (The 75-300 has cheaper IS, the much heavier 70-200 has much more expensive IS).
My clear conclusion is that the 17-85 only costs double of what it is worth if you value the IS at $0. That is simply not fair. Half the price of the 17-85 only gets you a Sigma 18-125. You cannot expect to get USM and IS thrown in for free.
--
Still learning to use the DRebel (only around 14.000 shots)
Public pictures at http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/
Torque124
Veteran Member
the Sigma in Australia is 1/3 of the price of the 17-85 ... Where did you get it for 500 USD ; cheapest I saw was B&H for 599 USD. And that for me it means another 100 for delivery/customs tax ...
I can't say IS is worth 0 $ ; but what I am trying to say it is not worth double the price , specially considering you are going up in fstops from 3.5 to 4 , and a bigger lens ( heavier also ? I didn't try them side by side ... ) .
On the other hand , the 17-85 looks kinda nice on the 20D ; probably my next camera ...
cheers
I can't say IS is worth 0 $ ; but what I am trying to say it is not worth double the price , specially considering you are going up in fstops from 3.5 to 4 , and a bigger lens ( heavier also ? I didn't try them side by side ... ) .
On the other hand , the 17-85 looks kinda nice on the 20D ; probably my next camera ...
cheers
Paul De Bra
Veteran Member
The Sigma retails around $250 currently. The Canon 17-85 can be had for around $515 (copied from a post here, reputable store, no rebates or any other coupon story), so the difference may be just over 2x but certainly nowhere near 3x.
You should not consider the IS as "worth double the price". Just look at what you can get that is more or less comparable but without the IS, and that is the Sigma 18-125. Then just consider the price difference. That is what you pay extra for the USM and IS. It is a bit more than for the 75-300 IS versus non-IS or for the 28-105 versus 28-135IS, but a lot less than for the 70-200L IS versus non-IS. (granted, the IS has a lot more work in that lens)
I have owned the Sigma 18-125 for a long time. The difference is more than just the USM and IS. The Sigma extends a lot when you zoom and that feels a bit flimsy (long plastic tube coming out of the main body), and it has zoom creep (point the camera down and the lens zooms), not when new, but as it is used more and more. The AF is noisy (so noisy people start looking at you in a conference room or lecture hall). The AF is inaccurate (parfocal technique works, but that leaves the 85-125mm range unusable, and it means you cannot do action shots). The vignetting and corner softness at 18mm f3.5 is pretty bad. But other than that the 18-125 is a nice lens. When everything is right you get awesome pictures. Really! (Have a look at my albums between July 10 and November 30.)
The Canon 17-85IS feels more solid. The lens extends only about an inch when zooming. It is larger and heavier. It focuses very fast and very accurately (so accurately I noticed a very consistent front-focus that was actually my camera's problem; never really noticed it before because I never had a lens that focused so consistently). The IS is absolutely amazing. The pictures I am now getting in churches and museums (without tripod) I could never get before. I had nice church pictures before but only with tripod. I really suffered in the first churches that did not allow the use of a tripod, and that was with the f2.8 of my Tamron 17-35. I too find the 17-85IS to be very expensive. It is my most expensive lens to date. But when I consider my lenses side by side I am not at all surprised that this is the most expensive lens. And looking at the images in my recent albums, I am not surprised either. I'm not saying this lens gives the image quality of an L lens (or of my Tamron 17-35 for that matter), but it is pretty good, and I am very glad I got it, despite the pain in my wallet.
Still learning to use the DRebel (only around 14.000 shots)
Public pictures at http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/
You should not consider the IS as "worth double the price". Just look at what you can get that is more or less comparable but without the IS, and that is the Sigma 18-125. Then just consider the price difference. That is what you pay extra for the USM and IS. It is a bit more than for the 75-300 IS versus non-IS or for the 28-105 versus 28-135IS, but a lot less than for the 70-200L IS versus non-IS. (granted, the IS has a lot more work in that lens)
I have owned the Sigma 18-125 for a long time. The difference is more than just the USM and IS. The Sigma extends a lot when you zoom and that feels a bit flimsy (long plastic tube coming out of the main body), and it has zoom creep (point the camera down and the lens zooms), not when new, but as it is used more and more. The AF is noisy (so noisy people start looking at you in a conference room or lecture hall). The AF is inaccurate (parfocal technique works, but that leaves the 85-125mm range unusable, and it means you cannot do action shots). The vignetting and corner softness at 18mm f3.5 is pretty bad. But other than that the 18-125 is a nice lens. When everything is right you get awesome pictures. Really! (Have a look at my albums between July 10 and November 30.)
The Canon 17-85IS feels more solid. The lens extends only about an inch when zooming. It is larger and heavier. It focuses very fast and very accurately (so accurately I noticed a very consistent front-focus that was actually my camera's problem; never really noticed it before because I never had a lens that focused so consistently). The IS is absolutely amazing. The pictures I am now getting in churches and museums (without tripod) I could never get before. I had nice church pictures before but only with tripod. I really suffered in the first churches that did not allow the use of a tripod, and that was with the f2.8 of my Tamron 17-35. I too find the 17-85IS to be very expensive. It is my most expensive lens to date. But when I consider my lenses side by side I am not at all surprised that this is the most expensive lens. And looking at the images in my recent albums, I am not surprised either. I'm not saying this lens gives the image quality of an L lens (or of my Tamron 17-35 for that matter), but it is pretty good, and I am very glad I got it, despite the pain in my wallet.
--
Still learning to use the DRebel (only around 14.000 shots)
Public pictures at http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum