Sharpness 18-55 kit vs. 17-85 IS ?

[Lenny_D]

I own two lenses for my 20D: a Canon 50mm f/1.4 and the 18-55mm kit lens. The 50mm is much-much-much better than the kit lens (no surprise) and many pictures I take with the kit lens dissapoint me. I do however like the versatility of the kit lens.
I'm looking for an alternative for the kit lens with a sharpness that approaches the 50mm. Do you think that the 17-85 EF-S is a good option?
Is it significantly better than the kit lens?
I don't want a lens starting at 24 or 28mm, it lacks the wide angles at a 1.6x crop camera.

Lenny

[mr.photoguy]

18-55 is ok at f8 and above..
starts to sharpen up around there..

but yeah the 17-85 is sharp, and has IS. My dad has that lens. It's pretty good.

[ron chappel]

Here is a comparison of those two (+ the sigma 18-125)
Note that you can click on the 'original' size and get full size files to compare!:)
http://www.pbase.com/franklin/canon_sigma

The 17-85 is not only sharp but is sharp wide open and right across it's focal length range

[Lenny_D]

Usefull comparison Ron! The 17-85 seems the clear winner. It is more contrasty than the Sigma and also slightly sharper. I recognize the fuzzy 18-55, even at f/8.0, very similar to mine.

I lean towards getting the 17-85. I do consider one other option: the 10-22mm maybe in combination with a 28mm f/2.8 prime (which will be complimented with my 50mm f/1.4). Less versatile, that's for sure....

Do you have an idea how the sharpness of the 10-22mm EF-S compares to the 17-85mm at 17mm?

Lenny

[mr.photoguy]

Funny thing about the 10-22...

I took over 40 images this saturday, and sunday, and I could only think of like 4 shots that I could have used a 10-22...
I would go for the 17-85 if I were you, and not looking to do portrait work, but I rathered the 28-75 Tamron because of the f2.8 .

[Lenny_D]

Well, the f/2.8 is nice but it is compensated for by the IS in case of the 17-85. OK, not entirely, the viewfinder will be less bright and subject movement is not compensated for by IS . But then 28mm is not wide enough in my opinion....

Lenny

[markubig]

have u considered the 17-40/f4 L?

.

[mr.photoguy]

Well, the f/2.8 is nice but it is compensated for by the IS in case of the 17-85. OK, not entirely, the viewfinder will be less bright and subject movement is not compensated for by IS . But then 28mm is not wide enough in my opinion....

Lenny

I don't think IS can compensate for the f2.8 because I use the f2.8 to attain a very shallow DOF, which I like in certain images. The IS can help can compensate for hand shake though that may take place in low light photography... ( I still think as ur walk around u should go for the 17-85 -- good walk around, very contrasty, the 17mm side is not bad either..)

I know, I also have an 18-55, which I usually use for landscapes and above f8, but will be changing that soon also if the tokina 12-24? is any good... the 28mm, although not that wide is pretty usable for some things that I do.

I think he would be happy with the 17-85 though.. With the IS, and the ability to go wide, and long.. he should be happy.


for me I want to go wider than 17 in the future, so my Tamron is my midrange, and what a nice one it is... lol...

My dad has the 17-85, and I used it a few times on his camera. the IS feature is a life saver for indoor no flash shots.

[Lenny_D]

Yeah, I did consider the 17-40 but I read in some postings that the 17-40 and the 17-85 are not that different in image quality/sharpness. Maybe this is not true though...
Do you know of a comparison?

[Lenny_D]

for me I want to go wider than 17 in the future, so my Tamron is my midrange, and what a nice one it is... lol...

That is exactly my reason to consider the 10-22mm (+primes) as an alternative for the 17-85. It saves money but I still think that the versatility of the 17-85 is worth it.
Is the image quality of the Tamron better than that of the 17-85?

[mr.photoguy]

That is exactly my reason to consider the 10-22mm (+primes) as an alternative for the 17-85. It saves money but I still think that the versatility of the 17-85 is worth it.
Is the image quality of the Tamron better than that of the 17-85?
I would think that they are on Par with each other, just that the Canon can go wider, and is EFS. The images from my dad's 17-85 are sharp, and contrasty.. very nice..

I wouldn't mind the 10-22, but at almost 600-700 dollars. phew .... I just spent close to 700 on a macro, so I have to take it easy for a bit.. but if the Tokina is priced reasonably, and offers good performance for sunsets, and sunrises. Then I will look into the purchase considering they are priced decently.(I don't know how much it costs.).

[Lenny_D]

OK, I think I'm convinced, the 17-85 will be mine.
BTW I'm going to combine it with the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro. I saved to buy both before summer!

[mr.photoguy]

You will love Macro... I can't get enough of it. I am trying to have a collection of Macro everything lol..