Canon Kit Lens VS. Canon 17-85mm IS USM

[Outdoor23]

Like many other people, I have been debating on whether to get the kit lens or a more expensive alternative. Though the kit lens is a good starting lens, I do think the 17-85 is a better "normal" lens (even though its more expensive) Im already saving my money for a 10-22 wide angle and a 70-300 do, so before any of these can happen, I need a good lens to cover the middle ranges. Being about $400 more expensive can frighten some people away, but you get better picture quality, wider range, an IS, and an USM - and isnt that what spending your pay check is all about when investing on expensive products?? If you do have some money hiding under your couch, It should be a good all around lens to go for, even if its 0.5 stop slower than the kit. Welcome all comments and opinions, as I will pretty soon order my "all around" lens!!!

[OceanView]

Been thinking about this lens vs. the 24-70L.
Common sense leads me to the 17-85, but I know that someday, I will regret not getting the 24-70.

Hope to decide before the rebate ends this week.

[Medic1]

If you can't afford a good wide angle right away....I say get the kit lens while your saving up for a better lens. Its not a horrible lens....in fact in a comparison of what it actually is worth vs. image quality, its pretty good. A POP photo review a couple months ago rated it as a great kits lens for its price.......

[Andy_T]

Been thinking about this lens vs. the 24-70L.
Common sense leads me to the 17-85, but I know that someday, I will regret not getting the 24-70.

Possible solution?

Look at the Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX as well.
Image quality and speed of the 24-70 L, width and price of 17-85.
Definitely worth considering.

Best regards,
Andy

[Gary_E]

i have the kit lens just having purchased a digital rebel xt but i am dissapointed in the sharpness of it. for normal just take pictures its fine. this was taken by it just fooling around. i bought the 55-200 ulatrasonic 4.5-5.6 and i am pleased
the grape vines were good depth of field and the people were available light.
the available light is not too sharp. i am purchasing a 50mm 1.4 as i have heard that is a good lens

[Andy_T]

Gary,

welcome to the forum!

Just some thoughts ...

- the kit lens is quite decent on the wide angle (18 mm) end, but not so great on the long end (that's where your 55-200 comes into play)

- the 50/1.4 is a very good lens, but a tad expensive.
There is also a 50/1.8, that is a lot cheaper (25% of the price), but - while not *quite* as good as the 50/1.4 - is also very good. As a starter lens, the 50/1.8 might be worth looking at, because you can gather experience without breaking the bank. Mind you ... I have just upgraded mine to the 50/1.4, but I used the 50/1.8 for quite some time with good results.
Also look at this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=84183)

- there are also some very good third-party 'normal lenses' ... especially the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and the Sigma 24-70/2.8. These are not as sharp and fast as the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8, but maybe more versatile, because they cover a longer range. The price of those is in the region of the 50/1.4 $350-400.

Best regards,
Andy

[uumode]

My input,

what the extra money of the 17-85mm buys you is not so much optical quality. (Though there is some improvement with contrast and sharpness at smaller apertures beyond f5.6 ish) So don't expect leeps and bounds in the optics department.

Where all that money goes is a more substantial body construction, longer range, IS, USM, full time manual focus, distance scale, and manufacturing costs are higher as it's made in Japan, where the kit is not.

You don't buy this lens with the prime objective to satisfy a need for a sharper lens. You buy this lens for the wider focal length, USM, FTM and most importantly image stabilisation. (If you don't need image stabilisation you would probably be better off with a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 or a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 depending which end of the focal length scale you shoot).

There have been lots of people dissatisfied with the results expecting a proportionate increase in optical quality with regard to it's 'near L' price.
(Nearest L is the 17-40L)

[m3incorp]

Image quality aside; you might want to consider the fact that when bought as the Canon Kit, you are only paying roughly $70 for the 18-85mm lens at most vendors. Given that price, I would buy the kit lens and still upgrade if needed and when money available. The kit lens are selling on Ebay for between $75-$100, so if you decided to sell later; you would not be taking a lost. Now if there is any significiant savings by buying the 17-85mm with the camera, then it might be worth it to you to purchase it at that time.

[Andy_T]

Correct ... apart from that the kit lens is 18-55 (not 18-85).
Nitpicking, I know, but here it makes comprehension a bit difficult.

If you buy the 17-85 with the camera, it is also a bit cheaper (100-150$) than if you buy it alone. However, as it's a quite expensive lens, the resale might not be so easy. Follow eBay for that one.

Actually, I never heard anybody who actually has the 17-85 lens complain about it ... they most of the time concede that - while it is not as sharp as the 24-70/2.8L - it is a good lens with a very usable range.

It's only us cheapskates who find it's to expensive for what it has to offer who bash the lens :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[ron chappel]

Personally i would definitely go for the 17-85.
Not because it's a particularly great lens (it's very good at least) but because the kit lens SIMPLY ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH .....for me.
Not quite

I know that many think the same.....and at least a few say they are pleased with the results they get with it so it's one of those things that is very difficult to make a recommendation on.


The only rule-of-thumb i can think of is -if you didn't like the results you got from any cheap zooms you may have had in the past,then the kit lens is allmost certainly not for you!

[marsipan]

I agree with Ron, the kit lens is not good enough, it shows in comparison to both my Canon 50 F/1.4 (oustanding colors and bokeh) and 75-300 IS USM (pretty good). The real question for me is if the 17-85 will really shine compared to kit lens, in terms of image quality, or if the advantage is "just" IS, USM and better built quality.

Paulo

[Skip Souza]

Hi, Outdoor.
When I discovered that 28mm was not wide enough for my needs I borrowed my wife's 18-55 kit lens. Not a bad lens if you stay within it's limitations. I subsequently picked up the EF-s 17-85 and the 70-300 DO. I am very pleased with both. The IS is awesome, good build quality, and the DO is quite compact. Love them both.

[davidfig]

Lets see 18-55 kit lens about $100, and the 17-85 IS kit lens $500? Which do you think is better?

I have the 18-55 only because I want it for the day I sold the camera. Do a seach on this forum for the 17-85 and see what others say. Especially look at photos. Check reviews of the 20D online, as most will also have the 17-85 lens in the review, along with others of course.

[Andy_T]

You can get the 18-55 and the Tamron 28-75/2.8 for less than the price of the 17-85 IS.

You lose the IS and 10 mm on the long end, and you have to swap lenses, but you get better image quality at least in the 28-75 range.

Best regards,
Andy

[Jack W.]

When I bought my 20D, I bought it with the 18-55 for 2 reasons.
First, no one had the body only. In fact, it was hard to find with the 18-55.
Second, I figured the 18-55 would give me something to work with and start to learn the camera, while I researched other lenses. The 18-55, as Skip noted in his post, is a pretty decent lens when used within it's limitations.
About 5 months later, I bought the 17-85IS, after reading a tons of posts on various boards and viewing lots of photographs taken with it. Glad I did. It's a really nice lens, and the IS is a big plus for me, even on a 17-85 lens.
Jack

[ggibbs1971]

I purchased the Tamron 28-75 about six months as a replacement for the Sigma 18-125, which was my walkaround lens with my new 300D. I have been very happy with it. However, since I did not originally have the kit lens. I have bought, sold and traded the following: Sigma 20/1.8, Canon 18-55, 35/2, 50/1.8, 24/2.8. I used each one about six times each. I sold the Sigma and got the Canon 200/2.8, thus I may sell my 70-200/4. At the wide end I wanted one great zoom lens. It was a toss up between the Sigma 18-50/2.8 and the 17-85IS. I got a great deal on the Canon, so I bought it. Hopefully this weekend I can give it a try.

[Section 8]

Get the kit lens, like others have said, it isn't a throw away, you will get your money out of it when you sell it. Aside from that you can by a lense reversing ring, and take some good manual macro shots with it. You can always use it for tesing set ups with too. I like to shoot water drops and I would like to do a macro close up of a few, as well as take lightening pictures with blowing rain and it is alot easier on my sanity to get the 18-55 wet than the 24-70.

[Incredirebelz]

so far i've been enjoying the 17-85... (1 week ownership) altho i have to say, the kit lens was quite good and i was never unhappy with it.

I went from the kit lens to the 17-85 IS USM becuz

a, the 55-85 range is often useful for me... far fewer lens changing
b, it has IS... the IS helps when I am shooting at slow shutter speed... and when i am actually in the picture (someone else holding the camera... usually in door).
c, it does give me sharper shots than the kit lens.
d, i convinced my buddy to take over my kit lens so i recovered 50bucks from it :eek:

[The Hardcard]

If I had the money for the 17-85mm lens, I'd have gotten that one, the image stabilization would have been worth it for me. I like using a tripod, but you have to exert more control of your subjects with one. The more exensive lens would have given me the extra freedom I desire.

That said, I think the kit lens (at least mine) is all right. Here is an actual pixels crop of a raw conversion with no other post-processing (no sharpening done at all)...