The 17-85mm vrs. the 18-55 lens with 20D?

[RobertCrow]

The Canon 20D comes available in three ways, body only, or with 17-85mm lens, or the 18-55mm lens.

Obviously the one with 17-85mm is most expensive, I know buying this camera & getting started I will depend on this for main wide-angle lens (for while anyways), curious your opinions on better choice when buying the 20D and which lens you would prefer, also tell me ur most preferred wide angle lens.
Thank you for helping me make a better decision.

[RJSorensen]

As a 'walk around' lens I have found the 17-85 to be just fine. Good range and the pictures look nice to me. It is light and the wife and or grown children can pick it up and just go shoot with it. I had the 18-55 for a while and it was ok, but I found the range just too short for a general everyday lens. Each of us is different and our needs will differ as well. I found that the IS on the 17-85 caused no harm and perhaps helped some, (this is my first lens with IS) so was pleased. It takes a 67mm filter size so is a fair size of glass btw. A lot of folks here like the 17-40 f4L lens, but for me it is just too short for a general lens 'L' or not. I hear a rumor that there are some more EF-S lens about to be released . . . I don't have a problem with the 'S' lens but they only fit the DRebel and the 20D. Lots of angles to consider in your selection for sure.

Best of luck to you and regardless of choice I feel you will enjoy same.

[Andy_T]

Robert,

I shortly pondered getting the 17-85 myself, but for me the advantage of IS and having to use only one lens was too expensive, considering the 600$ tag.

I went with the combination of 18-55 and the 300$ Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI that by all accounts is a lot sharper than the 17-85 and a constant 2.8 lens.

I am more than happy with my decision ... the only thing I noticed was that I use the Tamron about 99% of the time, because it is such a sweet lens. Mind you ... my 18-55 is also a very nice lens that performs great at f/5.6 (think I was lucky to get a good one), but the Tamron is just so much nicer, sharper and faster.

I assume that the 17-85 will be similar to the kit lens ... decent image quality, but not really spectacular (actually with more distortion on the wide end).

But that was just my line of thought, and your mileage may vary, especially if you consider IS important for your shooting style. I prefer a faster aperture :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[Bruce Watson]

Hi Robert,

I bought my 20D with the 17-85 and am very happy with it. Although the EFS mount is considered by some to be a limiting factor, my other camera is a 300D so I can use it, and the 10-22, on either.

If I eventually upgrade to a full frame sensor (MK***whatever), likely I will sell EFS bodies and lens all at once and my guess is they will hold value as well as anything else.

They are good performers. Is "L" glass better? Perhaps, but there are more factors than just brand or model that go into a good or great photo.

Weigh the costs/benefits for yourself, because there can be seemingly endless debate on this subject.

[ed2day]

My experience with the 18-55 was not good. I got it with my DReb hoping it would cover my wide angle needs. I found it to be soft stopped down and much worse wide open. CA turns trees purple even at normal crops. People say it's great for the money, and maybe it is, but what does that mean when you slap a $100 lens on a $1500 camera? I have compared it to a 28-135 IS and 17-40L and as you would expect for the price it's not even in the ballpark. The 17-85 is supposed to be a 1.6X variant of the 28-135 (with a more useful range) and I have not used one but if it's anything like my 28-135 I'd strongly recommend it. My 28-135 holds it's own against my two L series lenses, and in some cases is sharper. It's resolution approaches that of my camera. It's just not quite as consistent across the full ranges of zoom and aperture(compared to L). The IS is a nice bonus. I think I could be quite happy for a while with just the 17-85 if it is of comparable quality.