General zoom - 17-85IS vs. 17-70 sigma vs. 17-40L

[Psy Oct]

I'm looking for a kit lens replacement - I do a variety of photograpy, mainly landscape, and as such I'm more interested in the wide end than the tele, but I don't have enough money to buy a dedicated wide-angle as well as a replacement for the kit lens, and I don't want to be limited by just having a ultra-wide such as the 10-22. I'm using the 400D. Which of the three would you advise?

17-85 has IS, which is highly commended, the 17-70 is I believe the cheapest, and the 17-40L is the highest quality, as well as being full-frame compatible. My budget is ideally under 300, but I will stretch to 400 if necessery. I can get all of them within this.

[coldrain]

I guess you have the 18-55 kit lens? It is not a bad lens for the price, and in the wide angle it is better than the 17-85 is usm. The new EF-S 18-55 IS also is a lot better than the 17-85 IS ISM.

So, since you are mostly interested in the wide angle end, strike that 17-85 IS USM with its bad CA and very bad barrel distortion of your list. Very lowly recommended.

The above mentioned 18-55 IS ($180) is a lot cheaper, has better sharpness, nicer bokeh most probably, less CA problems and less barrel distortion. And a more efficient IS?
Not hard to choose between those two....

And then there is the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro. Nice contrasty lens, with good optics, quite low CA and a nice macro mode. And very good build quality. For around $430.

Those two would be my favorites on a lower budget.

The EF 17-40 f4 L USM is very well built and has quite pleasing optics and operation. I am not sure what I would choose, the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro or the 17-40 Canon. I might still go for the Sigma for its f2.8.

With a higher budget the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM would be very interesting too. But you already indicated that would be above your budget. And with such a budget you could go for a bigger range too, like a Tokina 12-24mm f4 + Canon EF-S 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS.

[BBPhoto]

The 17-40L is sweet but you would be pretty lucky to get a nice sharp copy for 400$ or less. After that, the 17-70 is a great lens too but not really in the same league as the 17-40L.

[Psy Oct]

The 17-40L is sweet but you would be pretty lucky to get a nice sharp copy for 400$ or less. After that, the 17-70 is a great lens too but not really in the same league as the 17-40L.

400 dollars? Woah. I'm working in pounds. 400 dollars would be a brilliant deal.

Didn't hear about the 17-85's barrel distortion, I guess that's off.

And yeah, 17-55 is way out of budget.

[fractalgfx]

I have the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, and I would have bought the sigma or tamron versions before considering the slower 17-40.

[Rhys]

400 dollars? Woah. I'm working in pounds. 400 dollars would be a brilliant deal.

Didn't hear about the 17-85's barrel distortion, I guess that's off.

And yeah, 17-55 is way out of budget.

I have a 17-85 IS. Unless you look really hard you won't see any barrel distortion. Unless you're into taking photos of brick walls, printing them to 20x16 and putting a ruler on the paper, you will not notice any barrel distortion.

[michaelb]

First, you need to ask one question:

- Do you want/need IS? IS is a Godsend for landscape shots if your not using a tripod. If you plan on always using a tripod then the IS doesn't matter. If your shooting landscapes IS will be much more useful than the ability to shoot at f/2.8.
- As Coldy mentioned, if you want a lens with IS, the new 18-55 IS is hard to beat at under 200 dollars, but keep in mind that the front element rotates while focusing, which might be a pain if your using a circular polarizer.
- I like my 17-70, but I eventually plan on replacing it with a lens in this range with IS.
- the 17-85 IS often gets a bad rap, but many users love it. It has better build than the 18-55 IS with likely faster focusing, but its supposedly optically inferior to the 18-55 IS and is more costly.

[Honest Gaza]

First, you need to ask one question:



Do I feel lucky ?

Well do ya....punk ? :p :D

Sorry :o

[Rhys]

The 18-55 is recommended by only 56% of the reviewers on Fred Miranda. The 17-85 is recommended by 79%. Big difference!

[coldrain]

The 17-85 IS USM has the worst barrel distortion of just about any lens, so why Rhys does not see it is anyone's guess.

Most lenses in the standard zoom class have barrel distortion at 17-18mm. But the worst are the Canon EF-S 17-85, the Nikon 18-70, 18-200 and the Tamron 18-250.

Now for some examples, else this yes/no game about the 17-85mm IS USM will continue indefinitely (it will anyway, since a certain member has it, and therefore feels it is the lens to recommend time and time again).

For a brick wall test as mentioned by Rhys...
Canon 17-85:
http://i.pbase.com/o4/62/470562/1/56159247.can1.JPG
The Sigma 17-70 does a lot better (even though is goes to f2.8 and has a similar focal range):
http://i.pbase.com/o4/62/470562/1/56159249.sig1.JPG

Now... it was said it only shows up in brick wall tests. Lets explore that?
Canon 17-85:

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/756048/2/istockphoto_756048_historic_dayton_courthouse_3.jp g

Notice the EXTREME bending of the square stacked pillar things near the edge of the frame?

http://i.pbase.com/g6/26/411626/3/69167813.EdNSmmK0.jpg

Even close to the middle of the frame, the building bulges...

http://i.pbase.com/g3/52/570652/3/57721669.IMG_3095.jpg

Not just the normal converging lines... the lines bulge/bend.

Here one from photozone.de

The lens broke a new record here - at 17mm it shows the most pronounced barrel distortions of all (supposedly) corrected lenses tested to date and that's by quite a margin. As you may observe in the sample shot below this is not only theory ...http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1785_456_is/dist17.jpg

Sure, for some people it is a convenient lens.
For the poster? I think not.

I do a variety of photograpy, mainly landscape, and as such I'm more interested in the wide end than the teleWhy advise the lens that is worst in the wide end, both in CA and in barrel distortion (and in vignetting)? That does NOT make sense. At all.

And then, when the 18-55 IS is CHEAPER, has LESS CA, less pronounced barrel distortion, is sharper and what not, the 17-85 does not make sense. Not for the wide end anyway!

[BBPhoto]

400 dollars? Woah. I'm working in pounds. 400 dollars would be a brilliant deal.

Didn't hear about the 17-85's barrel distortion, I guess that's off.

And yeah, 17-55 is way out of budget.


400 pounds... aaahhh! That's different. Out of those that you mention I would go for the 17-40L. With that budget you might be able to consider a 17-55IS 2.8 as well - another very nice lens.

[Psy Oct]

The 17-55 looks good, but I can't find it anywhere cheap enough.

the 18-55IS's end rotates, meaning I can't use filters, which I like to use.

That's some serious distortion on the 17-85 - but what about the 17-70? What's the distortion like on that?

And another thing, is the 10-22 canon that much better than the 10-20 sigma?

[coldrain]

Both the Sigma 17-70 and 18-50 f2.8 have less barrel distortion than the Canon 17-85.

There are 3 worthwhile APS-C ultra wide angle zooms:
Tokina 12-24mm f4, Sigma 10-20mm, and Canon 10-22mm f3.5-4.5.

The Tokina and Canon are best in regardes to distortion. They are much lower in distortion at their widest settings than the standard zoom lenses in their widest settings.

The Canon has the least barrel distortion and stopped down its light fall off to the edges disappears mostly. With the Sigma stopping down will still show light fall off (often referred to as "vignetting"). The Tokina is best with virtually no light fall off.
In CA the Tokina is last.
In contrast the Tokina scores best.

All in all, all three are worth while, the Canon is most expensive and has the least distortion (and do not forget to also buy its sun hood which is not included), the Tokina has the best build, and does not go as wide as the other 2.

[Rhys]

The 17-55 looks good, but I can't find it anywhere cheap enough.

the 18-55IS's end rotates, meaning I can't use filters, which I like to use.

That's some serious distortion on the 17-85 - but what about the 17-70? What's the distortion like on that?

And another thing, is the 10-22 canon that much better than the 10-20 sigma?

I note the exif is missing from the images so we do not know what body or lens was used.

[coldrain]

I note the exif is missing from the images so we do not know what body or lens was used.
Haha... that made me spit out my desert.

What body is used is of no importance what so ever. And that lovely wonderful perfect lens of yours, the barrel distortion king, the CA factory, the amazing (-ly expensive for what you get) Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 was used.

But then again, I did state those were samples taken with the 17-85.
I guess the internet is one big conspiracy? All those people all over the internet posting fake samples of 17-85 pictures, including Jeff Keller and photozone...

All those damn terrorists! I bet they all were molested boy scouts! From England.

Seriously though, it would not harm trying to keep the discussion at a decent level. The OP only needs real info about the lenses, no factual nonsense just because someone needs to defend their purchase or think what they decided on is the best solution for everyone. And to imply I posted fake photos is calling me a liar, a fraud. And that is not OK.
And fact is, the 17-85 IS USM is not good at its wide end, the end the OP is interested in mostly. Just about everything else is better in that focal range.

And everything else means:

Canon EF-S 18-55 f3.5-5.6
Canon EF-S 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM
Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 macro
Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di II
Canon EF -S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM
Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 HSM
Tokina 12-24 f4 DX
Tamron 11-18 f4.5-5.6 Di II

That is a big list of lenses that do better in wide angle range, just for the Canon mount.
Just another example from the either
1. very very crooked and bent English Cathedral building art, or
2. barrel distortion of the Canon EF-S 17-85 IS
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/eos_40d-review/IMG_0123-pp.JPG

[Psy Oct]

Alriight, I'm currently thinking either the 17-40L , or I get the 10-22 and just have to cope with the kit lens for a while, or get the 10-20 sigma and a 50mm prime (the 1.8 or the 1.4, depending on what prices I can find) and see if together they'll mean I won't really need the kit lens.

[coldrain]

Another option could be 12-24mm f4 Tokina (or 10-20 sigma depending on what has your preference) + 18-55 IS. You would gain wide angle, and you would gain IQ and IS at the standard zoom range. Since that IS lens is only $180.

[Clyde]

How does the 18-55 canon IS compare to the tamy 28-75 2.8, where they overlap, say 28-55, f4.5ish?

I haven't been keeping up with this stuff, is there a consensus?

Thx

[Rhys]

How does the 18-55 canon IS compare to the tamy 28-75 2.8, where they overlap, say 28-55, f4.5ish?

I haven't been keeping up with this stuff, is there a consensus?

Thx

The Tamron 28-75 will knock spots off any non-L lens.

[Psy Oct]

Another option could be 12-24mm f4 Tokina (or 10-20 sigma depending on what has your preference) + 18-55 IS. You would gain wide angle, and you would gain IQ and IS at the standard zoom range. Since that IS lens is only $180.

I wasn't sure about the 18-55IS - the rotating end makes it hard to use filters.

[coldrain]

I wasn't sure about the 18-55IS - the rotating end makes it hard to use filters.
I know, you mentioned that before. But the wide angle zoom will allow you to use the filters...
It is your decision, and your choice of what you want to use filters for.

[Psy Oct]

Alriight, I'm currently thinking either the 17-40L , or I get the 10-22 and just have to cope with the kit lens for a while, or get the 10-20 sigma and a 50mm prime (the 1.8 or the 1.4, depending on what prices I can find) and see if together they'll mean I won't really need the kit lens.

Anyone else got an opinion on this?

[michaelb]

Anyone else got an opinion on this?

If you can swing it, my vote would be for the 10-22 and the 18-55 IS. Have you considered picking up the 10-22 second hand on FM or POTN to save a little $?

Oh, and you add a 50mm f/1.8 for next to nothing; its a great lens for the $, IMO.

[Psy Oct]

If you can swing it, my vote would be for the 10-22 and the 18-55 IS. Have you considered picking up the 10-22 second hand on FM or POTN to save a little $?

Oh, and you add a 50mm f/1.8 for next to nothing; its a great lens for the $, IMO.

I've been looking at eBay, haven't checked FM or POTN. FM is Fred Miranda isn't it, but what's POTN?

[Rhys]

I've been looking at eBay, haven't checked FM or POTN. FM is Fred Miranda isn't it, but what's POTN?

POTN is photography on the net (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php).

The 50 f1.8 is junk. I had one and couldn't get rid of it fast enough. I might get another 50 but probably it'll be the 50 f1.4

[coldrain]

The 50mm f1.8 is not junk at all. I do not feel the need to have a 50mm at the moment, but the 50mm f1.8 is a good and very cheap lens. As many of its owners will tell you.

Of course, the more expensive 50mm lenses feel less cheap, but the optics of the 50mm f1.8 are capable of very nice results.

[michaelb]

The 50mm f1.8 is not junk at all. I do not feel the need to have a 50mm at the moment, but the 50mm f1.8 is a good and very cheap lens. As many of its owners will tell you.

Of course, the more expensive 50mm lenses feel less cheap, but the optics of the 50mm f1.8 are capable of very nice results.
I agree. The image quality of mine is very good, the main problem is focusing. If you gave a stationary subject, no problem; but if your subject is moving (like one of my nieces) then the AF just isn't good enough....

I just recently purchased the 50mm f/1.4 and I tested it against the f/1.8 and the f/1.4 is better, but not by much

I now have the 50mm f/1.4 and the 60mm macro, so it doesn't get used as much anymore.





In some of my testing the 50mm f/1.8 actually looked a little better!! There is more CA in the 50mm f/1.4 shot here than the 50mm f/1.8!!..(100% crops)...

50mm f/1.4 @ f/1.8
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/227640502-M.jpg


50mm f/1.8 @ f/1.8
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/227640435-L.jpg







The 50mm f/1.8 is a good lens for the money, no doubt....

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/135/318228306_f12986dd69.jpg







http://farm1.static.flickr.com/130/318222751_c3def6af4a.jpg






http://farm1.static.flickr.com/144/398234219_44a780e228.jpg

[BBPhoto]

I used the 50 1.8 for a while and it is a decent lens. Once you factor in the cost... it is no less than an absolute bargain.

[AdamW]

I used the 50 1.8 for a while and it is a decent lens. Once you factor in the cost... it is no less than an absolute bargain.

I agree. Here's a sample from me: