Canon 17-85

[chuckman]

This is where the rubber meets the road (or steel on steel in this case), I have the money to upgrade my *ugh* kit lens 18-55 to the 17-85.I want a lens that the doorstep of L quality, but I'm willing to compromise. I want good AF, and fairly sharp images of good quality. Nothing phenominal, but something to get the job done well for the price, assuming that later on down the road, I'll upgrade to real L, or maybe some primes. Well, anyone going to stop me? What do you think about it from a railfan's perspective? Does is serve you well? How does it compare to the 18-55, and how does it compare to L glass?

Charlie

[milwman]

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos Here is a page that you can look up what you want, I didn't care for the 17-85 and sold it not long after getting it.

[Chase55671]

Anything will be an upgrade from the kit. I honestly suggest just saving for L. Not sure how much the 17-85 costs, but the 17-40L is fairly reasonable at less than 800.

Chase

[troy12n]

I have a 17-85 IS that cant use anymore. PM me if you are interested in it, make an offer. I use mostly a 5d now and 5d does not accept EF-S lenses which the 17-85 is.

It's a decent enough lens with a pretty good range, and has IS and USM which is nice.

[Drew.Sabens]

Save a few extra weeks and get the 17-40L I love it as a lens. another good option is the 24-105L again reasonably priced gives you good reach and great image quality. i'd try and stay away from getting new EF-S lenes as you can't grow as well with them if you change bodies.

[troy12n]

The 17-40L and 17-85 are very different lenses. I own both. While the 17-40 is better from 17 to 40, it cannot touch the 17-85 from 41 to 85... read between the lines. It took some getting used to this limitation, especially on a full frame. It's also more than half the price.

[chuckman]

Although I'd like to go and spend a grand, I can't do that. Right now I guess I'm deciding between putting up with the kit for another year, or upgrading slowly now...

I'm pretty ignorant here...the 50D will accept that any lens, right? That's my next body upgrade. As for your offer Troy, I'll keep you handy, assuming you still have the lens when I've made my decision.

[Mgoldman]

Yes - the 50D will accept both EF and EF-S lenses.

The only catch, as you have seen, is that the EF-S digital only lens will not mount onto an older film camera or the non-crop modern digital cameras like the Canon 5D.

When purchasing a lens keep in mind a few factors;

How "fast" a lens do you want?
I have the Canon 17-55 EF-S IS 2.8
F/2.8 across the board is nice for low light or when you need to shoot at faster shutter speeds.

How much range to you want?
Going 24-105 means you won't have to swap lenses as often as a 17-40mm.
And you can shoot more variations with the same lens - zoomed from far away and still again, up close. I have a Canon 10-22 which I only use for close up while the 24-105 is as close to a one lens suits all needs type of lens. Of course there are others that seem to have jumped to either Sigma or Canon 18-200mm.

How much do you want to spend?

Do you want IS (Image Stablization)? Not only will it help reduce some blur but keep in mind it will also allow you to shoot at much slower shutter speeds, at least for subjects not moving.


/Mitch

[JRMDC]

For a couple hundred more you can also do the 15-85, improved image quality over the 17-85, from what I read. Especially on the wide or narrow end, which ever one is the one that is weak on the 17-85. I think it is the wide end.

"Improved" is, of course, relative. The 15 by itself is reason enough to buy it over the 17, that extra wide is really valuable. On the other hand, it is harder to find a used 15-85, hasn't been out that long yet, and you can get some really low prices on the 17-85.

I keep wanting to get it but I just can't justify it. Someday when I take a major trip and need a one lens solution ... There is one available locally on Craigslist, nice price ...

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by chuckman

Nothing phenominal, but something to get the job done well for the price, assuming that later on down the road, I'll upgrade to real L...

Originally Posted by chuckman

Although I'd like to go and spend a grand, I can't do that. Right now I guess I'm deciding between putting up with the kit for another year, or upgrading slowly now...

If you're planning on owning an L lens in the near future, why waste money on something now when can put that money toward an L lens? Spending the money you have saved now for a non-L lens is just going to make you have to wait longer to get an L lens.

However, if you DON'T plan on buying an L lens anytime in the near future, then go ahead and get a non-L one.

By the way, is there such a thing as a "fake L"?

[Dennis A. Livesey]

This post misbehaved and wound up in the wrong thread. It has been punished, has apologized and now is where is should be.

Originally Posted by JimThias
"If you're planning on owning an L lens in the near future, why waste money on something now when can put that money toward an L lens? Spending the money you have saved now for a non-L lens is just going to make you have to wait longer to get an L lens.

However, if you DON'T plan on buying an L lens anytime in the near future, then go ahead and get a non-L one.

By the way, is there such a thing as a "fake L"?"


Right on Jim.

So get the best glass you can, as soon as you can. You won't regret it. And you will wish you had done it sooner.

As far as fake L is concerned, since the 17-55 and the 10-22 are EF-s they cannot cover full frame, are not weather sealed and don't have that red ring signifying an L lens.

However, the glass in both is, from what I see, indistinguishable from L performance. So they get the fake L from me.

[troy12n]

Anyone else interested in a 17-85IS let me know... I have no plans for it. Was going to maybe try to sell it on craigslist at some point.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by JimThias

If you're planning on owning an L lens in the near future, why waste money on something now when can put that money toward an L lens? Spending the money you have saved now for a non-L lens is just going to make you have to wait longer to get an L lens.

However, if you DON'T plan on buying an L lens anytime in the near future, then go ahead and get a non-L one.

By the way, is there such a thing as a "fake L"?

I don't follow the logic here. There is no need to keep the non-L when you get the L. So spending the money now does not make you wait longer. Especially if you buy used, you will find your loss of value is negligible or even zero after resale. And then - most importantly - you get the use of the better (but not super-better) lens during all that time that Jim would have you wait and save and just use the kit lens.

I am sure glad I had the Sigma 17-70 during all that time I was waiting before buying the 17-55 IS. I'm glad I had the 75-300 during all that time I was waiting before buying the 70-200 /4 L.

Incremental upgrading can be good.

[troy12n]

I don't think L vs non-L matters in terms of depreciation in terms of lenses or other photo gear (except bodies). They tend to hold their value pretty well. My 85/1.8 that I bought for $385 (and almost NEVER use) I have could resell it tomorrow for ~$350. Same with just about anything but some of those cheesy 28-70/35-80 zooms they sold as kit lenses for rebels in the 90's. I don't think they have much value these days.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

I don't follow the logic here.

What's not to get? If someone PLANS on buying an L lens in the future and their only excuse for not getting it RIGHT NOW is that they can't afford it, why WASTE money buying a cheaper alternative if that money spent only means they have to wait longer to accumulate enough money to buy the L?

Again, if he has no plans to buy an L, then go ahead and get the cheaper alternative. It just doesn't make sense to me to spend $300-500 (or whatever) on a cheaper alternative NOW if that money can be set aside to by an $800-1200 L lens.

Incremental upgrading can be good.

Not when there is very little return for the lower quality equipment.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by troy12n

I don't think L vs non-L matters in terms of depreciation in terms of lenses or other photo gear (except bodies). They tend to hold their value pretty well. My 85/1.8 that I bought for $385 (and almost NEVER use) I have could resell it tomorrow for ~$350.

I don't see it that way. I'd give you no more than $250 for it. However, if someone wants to be foolish enough to spend that much money on a used piece of plastic, then more power to them.

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by JimThias

I don't see it that way. I'd give you no more than $250 for it. However, if someone wants to be foolish enough to spend that much money on a used piece of plastic, then more power to them.

You are killing my resale value here. Take your elitist EF-S hating gibberish elsewhere!

Also, it is not plastic mount like the 50/1.8. It's a metal mount and it's made of the same stuff that the 24-70, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200/4, 17-55 and most every non-supertele made in the last 5-10 years is made of.

Metal is so last century.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by troy12n

You are killing my resale value here. Take your elitist EF-S hating gibberish elsewhere!

Well, they DO make good dust collectors.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by JimThias

What's not to get? If someone PLANS on buying an L lens in the future and their only excuse for not getting it RIGHT NOW is that they can't afford it, why WASTE money buying a cheaper alternative if that money spent only means they have to wait longer to accumulate enough money to buy the L?

Again, if he has no plans to buy an L, then go ahead and get the cheaper alternative. It just doesn't make sense to me to spend $300-500 (or whatever) on a cheaper alternative NOW if that money can be set aside to by an $800-1200 L lens.



Not when there is very little return for the lower quality equipment.

Why are you shouting, Jim? Lacking confidence in your argument? Think it will be stronger if louder?

The point is that there is little waste. Buy an affordable upgrade lens now, use it (ahem, USE IT), get value out of it, then when more money accumulates, sell it and get the L. whatever loss in owning a used lens, if any, is more than made up for by the value of having the better lens now, instead of the kit lens, to shoot with while saving money.

Put differently, you say set aside money, I say use the money to improve photography now and have most of it for later to contribute to a further upgrade. My argument depends on the lack of depreciation in a lens purchased used, I believe that to be true for most quality lenses, not the schlock.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by troy12n

They tend to hold their value pretty well. My 85/1.8 that I bought for $385 (and almost NEVER use) I have could resell it tomorrow for ~$350.

Troy is right, Jim is wrong.

Originally Posted by JimThias

Not when there is very little return for the lower quality equipment.

There is considerable return, can even be 100% or close to it.

Originally Posted by JimThias

I don't see it that way. I'd give you no more than $250 for it. However, if someone wants to be foolish enough to spend that much money on a used piece of plastic, then more power to them.

Jim is just baiting Troy. He knows darn well that if Troy is foolish enough to sell it to him, he can flip it and pocket an easy $100. Good try at baiting, Jim!

[Walter S]

I own one non L lens and it is the EFS 10-22. It has great image quality and is built fairly well. I would put it up to an L counterpart anyday. It is perfect on a crop camera.

I owned the 17-85 and it wasn't a bad lens. I would however consider the 15-85 though as it looks to be better and you will notice the extra 2mm on the wide end.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

Why are you shouting, Jim? Lacking confidence in your argument? Think it will be stronger if louder?

Just using YOUR technique. haha

The point is that there is little waste. Buy an affordable upgrade lens now, use it (ahem, USE IT), get value out of it, then when more money accumulates, sell it and get the L. whatever loss in owning a used lens, if any, is more than made up for by the value of having the better lens now, instead of the kit lens, to shoot with while saving money.

Put differently, you say set aside money, I say use the money to improve photography now and have most of it for later to contribute to a further upgrade. My argument depends on the lack of depreciation in a lens purchased used, I believe that to be true for most quality lenses, not the schlock.

Save for the L lens, keep using the kit lens. You're not going to notice that much difference between the kit and the non-L to justify the "cheaper alternative upgrade lens period" where you ultimately end up losing money in the end. All I'm saying is, if you're goal is to own an L lens, don't waste time and money with a cheap alternative when you can focus on saving the required money for several more months to get the L. However, if the person doesn't plan on an L, then go ahead and get the cheap alternative.

There is considerable return, can even be 100% or close to it.

Wow, there must be an awful lot of suckers in this world.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Just using YOUR technique. haha

????

I never capitalize in general, and I didn't in this thread, at least not until you did it and I then did it once, to mock you.

You're not going to notice that much difference between the kit and the non-L to justify the "cheaper alternative upgrade lens period" where you ultimately end up losing money in the end. All I'm saying is, if you're goal is to own an L lens, don't waste time and money with a cheap alternative when you can focus on saving the required money for several more months to get the L. However, if the person doesn't plan on an L, then go ahead and get the cheap alternative.

I saw a big difference just in moving up to the Sigma 17-70, which has a mixed reputation, mine was quite noticeably sharper than the prior lens, which I vaguely recall was the 28-105 3.5/4.5. I might be mixing them up, I am not remembering now if I ever had the 18-55 non-IS kit lens, I think not.

The 17-55 IS is better still, of course.

We simply disagree on whether one is wasting time and money.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

????

I never capitalize in general, and I didn't in this thread, at least not until you did it and I then did it once, to mock you.

I swear I've seen you capitalize words to emphasize them. Perhaps I'm thinking of another master debater.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by JimThias

I swear I've seen you capitalize words to emphasize them. Perhaps I'm thinking of another master debater.

I won't say I have never done it but I avoid it, I think it is bad form, sloppy, shows an inability to communicate. If the words are forceful, the font need not be. Call it what I strive for. I always recoil a bit when I see it done, I always lower slightly my assessment of what is being said. Perhaps better put, I am always a bit suspicious of why someone feels the need to embellish by font rather than by information. Call it my reading bias.

If I ever do it, call me out on it, I would feel I deserve if, even if no one else does.