Canon Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS lens

[adairusmc]

Due to a little mishap while fishing (caught my own camera strap and launched it, my kit lens got a bit of damage. I will probably get it repaired, but in the meantime, I am looking for a good upgrade and replacement for that lens.

Would this be a good lens to use with my Xsi ?

 

[996GT2]

Not really. The image quality isn't really better than the 18-55 IS that comes with the XSi. The 17-85 focuses faster, but it's just as slow in terms of aperture and much bigger/heavier than the 18-55 IS.

If you don't want to spend a lot I would just get another 18-55 IS. It really is a great budget lens. If you want more of a true "upgrade," I would step up to the excellent Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. It's very sharp and the constant f/2.8 aperture opens up a world of possibilities for you.

Of course the best normal zoom in the Canon arsenal is the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, but since that costs around $950 compared to the Tamron's $350, I figured you'd find the Tamron more fitting.

 

[adairusmc]

thanks for the tip, I will definitely look at one of those.

 

[adairusmc]

Another question. If I went with something like the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM mentioned in the Canon lens guide, would that be a decent replacement as far as the capabilities of the kit lens in comparason. It would be used for the vast majority of the pictures I take, just like my kit lens is used for, and I know the L series will blow it out of the water.

I also have a 50mm F/1.8 and the cheaper 75-300mm telephoto in my kit.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: adairusmc
Another question. If I went with something like the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM mentioned in the Canon lens guide, would that be a decent replacement as far as the capabilities of the kit lens in comparason. It would be used for the vast majority of the pictures I take, just like my kit lens is used for, and I know the L series will blow it out of the water.

I also have a 50mm F/1.8 and the cheaper 75-300mm telephoto in my kit.

Depends on what you are shooting. The 17-40 L is a great lens, but I question its usefulness on a cropped-sensor camera like the XSi. On a full frame camera it is a true ultrawide (17-40mm), but when you mount it on a cropped-sensor camera its actual focal length is more like 28-65mm...which basically puts it into the focal length league as the Tamron 17-50. But then you have to consider factors like price (17-40L costs almost 2x as much), weight (17-40L is heavier and bigger) , and aperture (f/4 vs 2.8)...when all of that is said and done, I don't think it's really worth it. If you're considering the 17-40 L I would just get the 17-55 f/2.8 IS instead. It might cost a little more, but it's a more useful lens on a cropped-sensor camera in my opinion, and just as sharp as the 17-40. Otherwise, just save your money and pick up a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

Now if you shoot landscapes a lot and you would like to have a true ultrawide on your XSi, look at the 10-22mm. Mounted on the XSi, that lens will give you approximately the same focal lengths as a 17-40 mounted on a full frame camera. The 10-22 is a dedicated APS-C lens and will not work on a full frame camera (same story with the Tamron 17-50 and Canon 17-55 IS).

By the way, there are no L lenses for APS-C cameras. A requirement for a lens to be labeled an "L" is that it be full-frame compatible. That's why the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is not an L despite its excellent image quality. If you have the money, that is the lens I would get. If you don't, I would compromise and go for the Tamron, which is almost as sharp and still offers you that great f/2.8 max aperture at any focal length.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: adairusmc
If I went with something like the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM mentioned in the Canon lens guide, would that be a decent replacement as far as the capabilities of the kit lens in comparason. It would be used for the vast majority of the pictures I take, just like my kit lens is used for, and I know the L series will blow it out of the water.

The 17-40 f/4 L is a good lens which is cheaper than the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8, and will work decently on a full frame camera should you change to that format in the future, as well as being useful as a general-purpose "walk-around" lens on a crop-format camera.

If you have no intentions in the medium to long term of moving to full-frame, then the EF-S probably makes more sense, but otherwise, IMO, the 17-40 would probably be a better choice.

This choice also depends on how wide you'd like to go. If you shoot more in the portrait and tele range, then you'd be better off spending your money on a mid-range zoom instead of an ultra-wide, and letting the kit 18-55 IS do that part. Also, if/when you go to full-frame, you might then find one of the 24-x lenses sufficient, and not want an ultra-wide in addition. Note that there aren't many choices in the real ultra-wide for full frames. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is not full-frame, and of course none of the EF-S lenses are.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: adairusmc
Also, if/when you go to full-frame, you might then find one of the 24-x lenses sufficient, and not want an ultra-wide in addition. Note that there aren't many choices in the real ultra-wide for full frames. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is not full-frame, and of course none of the EF-S lenses are.

A little off topic, but:

FF UWA lenses are something that Nikon does better (14-24 is beastly), but there are at least 4 good choices for Canon:

Sigma 12-24mm HSM, Canon 14mm, Canon 16-35mm, Canon 17-40mm.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Hate to sorta hijack this but what does: "17-50mm f/2.8" mean??

I can't even guess. I am a noob so could someone please explain a little in-depth about it thanks,

529th

 

[twistedlogic]

17-50mm f/2.8

When you see two different focal lengths listed on a lens as above, it signifies the lens is a "zoom" lens, as you can change to any focal at and between these two numbers. For instance, this lens will shoot at 17mm, 35mm, 50mm and everything between.

The number after the focal length is that lenses largest aperture you can use, which in case of zooms the largest you'll see is 2.8. They can still be stopped down to smaller apertures, giving you more depth of field but also slower shutter speeds.

Primes (fixed focal lengths) are listed as such, 50 f/1.8, 80 f/1.4, 300 f/4.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

So f/2.8 is really 17 50mm focal with 2.8 aperture?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
So f/2.8 is really 17 50mm focal with 2.8 aperture?

yeah, it'll do any focal length from 17 to 50 at a maximum aperture of f/2.8.

a lens that is 18-55 f/4-5.6 means that over the focal range of 18 mm to 55 mm the maximum aperture decreases from f/4 at 18 mm to f/5.6 at 55 mm.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
So f/2.8 is really 17 50mm focal with 2.8 aperture?

yeah, it'll do any focal length from 17 to 50 at a maximum aperture of f/2.8.

a lens that is 18-55 f/4-5.6 means that over the focal range of 18 mm to 55 mm the maximum aperture decreases from f/4 at 18 mm to f/5.6 at 55 mm.

Ahh, very cool. So how does the aperture pertain to the picture? I have 2 cams. HF S100 & HDC TM300 ... I know setting the aperture lower it darkens the picture but is there an advantage? I just don't understand what the need for a dark pic would be...

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
there are at least 4 good choices for Canon:

Sigma 12-24mm HSM, Canon 14mm, Canon 16-35mm, Canon 17-40mm.

Also somewhat off-topic, not quite ultra-wide, and not even auto-focus, but still the Zeiss 21 f/2.8 ZE will probably get some attention at least on full frames when it comes out.

 

[Doggiedog]

I had the 17-85mm for my 20D. After about 1.5 yrs I stepped up and got the 24-105mm f/4.0L. The 17-85mm pales in comparison to the L. the 24-105mm wasn't out when I got the other lens but I really should have gotten the L earlier. The PQ difference is very noticeable. On top of PQ, one of the things I hated about the 17-85mm was the variable aperture. If you had your camera set on AV at 4.0 and you zoomed in to 85mm, your AV setting would change to 5.6 but if you zoomed back out, it would still stay at 5.6 instead of going to 4.0. Very annoying...

Edit: If you can afford it, I would suggest getting an L. They retain their value a lot better the regular Canon lenses. If you don't like it, you could sell it and not take too much of a hit. If you get the 17-85mm brand new, you will take a hit on it if you try to sell it. I was going to sell mine, which I bought for $600 but I could only get about $300 for it so I gave it to a family member.