17-55mm F2.8 IS USM or 17-85mm IS USM?

[rendition]

Perhaps, it's more appopriate to give you a real-world sample than one from a controlled environment. So... here it is... Straight off camera as JPEG.

Original

100% Crop

If you need more sharpness, you'd know a simple click in Photoshop would do the job. Else, shoot to RAW. I was stuck with a 2GB card back then for that trip so....

Good luck.

 

[ianhyk]

It was my first lens :bsmilie: i never said it wasnt good i just said i regretted paying so much for it then

Haha my first lens too and i'm still using it everyday now! It's not the best IQ, but i must say the IS and the wonderful range still makes it the perfect general photog lens for me.

 

[Michaelavaloke2009]

IMHO, indoor shoot better to have lens of f/2.8 and below. But since that TS already had something in his mind, i'm not going to say anything more. Just have fun with what ever lens you have. I do get some good photos with my kit lens given the sufficient lights. So the people behind the cam is equally important, LOL.:think:
picture of 18-55 kit lens.

no PP, direct from sensor

100% cropped

 

[donkey69]

hmm but im using a crop sensor, so 28 would be really hard for group shots in confined spaces. probably would be getting the 17-85 though. and if its bad, then its a lesson learnt!

and yup i do both indoor and outdoor shots. i would get the 70-200 F4 lens, but just probably not now. in the distant future probably. afterall, im just an enthusiast and i dont plan on spending so much. yet.

 

[donkey69]

yeah the photographer is important! im not saying the 18-55 kit lens is not good, just that i prefer to work with a longer zoom??? cause sometimes i really cant move forward ot reposition myself.

regarding a lens with f2.8 and below, i do have a canon 50mm F1.8II though. cheap but effective.

 

[nottipiglet]

The people who say that the 17-85 is similar to the kit are quite simply wrong. It is definitely superior to the kit. I used the 17-85mm for a few years, up until recently. It is definitely a capable lens, though it has many shortcomings. Just read up on the reviews to know where the weak spots are. I find that the focusing is fast and quiet. It has a good range while being extremely small and light. Picture quality is decent, though not great. However, I find the barrel distortion to be very pronounced. I need to use photoshop a lot to straighten the 'falling buildings', etc.

However, if you compare it with the 17-55, then it will pale quite significantly. The 17-55 is a great lens. It produces great IQ with fantastic colour. I cannot fault it in any sense. People do point out that the lens exhibit light falloff. However, that is the nature of all zoom lenses... even the greatest. I would even say that this is the best EF-S lens money can buy.

As for the lack of zoom range... you cannot have the best of both worlds. If you want quality pictures at constant wide aperture of f/2.8, you need to sacrifice some range. Else, the lens will become too big and heavy, even if it is scientifically possible to produce such a lens.

Personally, I think if you need the range at some point, you can pick up the EF-S 55-250 or the EF 70-300 to go with the 17-55 IS. The best would be the 70-200L IS, but that's considerably more pricey and also heavier.

 

[donkey69]

i do own a 55-250 lens, but occasionally i prefer a walk-around lens that allows me to travel freely.

really, thanks for your advice. sheds some new light on what has been discussed. i think.

 

[nottipiglet]

Some images taken with the 17-85mm IS on a 350D... just to show what the lens is capable of:

If 85mm is what you need, then it's not a bad option.

 

[nottipiglet]

As for how bad the barrel distortion is... just take it from me that it is bad. I usually straighten the buildings as part of my workflow, so I don't have any pictures in my PC to show you. My RAW files are archived in DVD and stored away... and I'm too lazy to go retrieve them. ;p

 

[2evans]

As for how bad the barrel distortion is... just take it from me that it is bad. I usually straighten the buildings as part of my workflow, so I don't have any pictures in my PC to show you. My RAW files are archived in DVD and stored away... and I'm too lazy to go retrieve them. ;p

DVD for backup is very iffy, as they might not be readable after a few years.

 

[nottipiglet]

DVD for backup is very iffy, as they might not be readable after a few years.

I use Archival DVD... not the regular ones. But even then, DVDs have not been around long enough. So it's really not tested. I cannot find Archival DVDs in Singapore. I had to ship them in.

http://www.amazon.com/Verbatim-95355-UltraLife-Archival-50-Disc/dp/B000H3B6EO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=musical-instruments&qid=1251274405&sr=8-1

 

[stonefish35]

TS : Maybe you can consider this combo , Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 , with a Canon 28-105mm for more reach. The F2.8 for indoors, portraits shoots and slightly wider shoot , while the canon 28-105mm will give more reach. Combine cost of both this lenses will be less than the Canon 17-55mm F2.8. Both lenses give decent IQ. Of course, cannot use L glass IQ as a yardstick.

 

[yc2005]

I have changed from 18-55mm kit to 17-85mm. What prompted me to change is because the kit lens do not have USM and the last straw was when I couldn’t capture kids, especially when they are running around etc; focusing was simply too slow on the kit. Also, this lens has slightly more reach and it is not possible to walk a few steps all the time. Thats when you would appreciate the slightly longer reach.

Lastly, the price is quite reasonable if you buy a second hand version. I think it is one of the cheapest lens in the market with IS and USM. Sure, it isn't the best lens in the market with its flaws and shortcoming. However, i feel that it has served me well and if you understand its strengths and weaknesses, probably you would like it too

 

[hetfieldpaul]

you could consider the sigma 17-70mm

 

[Nupro]

I recommend the 17-55 2.8 IS ....was using it before I upgraded to FF. Sharpness is as good as the 24-70. The 2.8 comes in handy for low-light situation.

 

[wootsk]

If TS idea of getting the 17-55 is purely for a stop of light faster. My thinking is to rather invest in a flash. But still I will say that the 17-55 is a good performer except that it is not really worth the cost especially price rose up till 1.5k now. When buying equipment, always look for your needs, the additional is just an add-on.

 

[nottipiglet]

I found a photo that shows the barrel distortion of the 17-85mm:

Note the 'falling building' effect.

My personal preference is the EF-S 17-55mm IS. Cost aside, it's just the best lens in its class.

 

[surrephoto]

Tamron 17-50 f2.8.

Trust me on this one.

 

[calebk]

I found a photo that shows the barrel distortion of the 17-85mm:

Note the 'falling building' effect.

My personal preference is the EF-S 17-55mm IS. Cost aside, it's just the best lens in its class.

The perspective is already slanted because you're tilting the camera upwards to accomodate the structure, but yes the barrel distortion makes it even more warped (pun intended). :bsmilie:

 

[nottipiglet]

The perspective is already slanted because you're tilting the camera upwards to accomodate the structure, but yes the barrel distortion makes it even more warped (pun intended). :bsmilie:

Yup yup... the tilt is part of the problem... but the barrel distortion makes it worse. :bsmilie:

Both can be corrected very easily in photoshop.