Canon 17-40mm L Lens or Canon 17-85 AF-S Lens

I am in a fix whether to buy the Canon 17-40mm L Lens or the Canon 17-85 mm AF-S Lens?? there are several reports that the barrel distortion on the Canon 17-85mm lens is too much & images of architectural objects are quite distorted & straight lines appear curved. But the 17-85mm is a very versatile lens and there is no denying that fact. whereas the distortion on 17-40m L lens is much less as well as the contrast on this lens is very good. Would it really be a problem if I use the 17-85mm for architectural photography? Both the lens are of almost the same price. Help needed urgently. Thanks in advance.

get the 17-40mm L just in case you gonna update your camera to Mark II N or to full frame....i dont think the 17-85mm is not compatible with Mark IIn...I had the 17-85mm with my 20D before and didn't have any problem with it...it was a little soft...

welcome, i'd imagine you'd be using the wide end more with shooting architecture. im studying architecture and the next lens on my list is the 17-40! what other lenses do you have? maybe you wont miss the extra focal length if you already have it covered.

I have the 17-40 and i used to own the 17-85 (got it with my 20D). I sold the 17-85 because i didnt use it enough, but now I regret it because it's really a very nice and versatile zoom and I dont think the distortion that people talk about is a real concern except maybe for test shots (never was for me anyway).

Im going on a trip to Rome in the end of february and i would like a wide lense for indoor use. I will not be able to bring a mono- or tripod so all will be handheld. The 17-40 is just to slow for most indoors use without flash or pod but the IS would be perfect for this. I know the 17-85 is kinda slow but the IS is very effective for non moving subjects.
If there is not to much distance to your subject i think its hard to tell the 17-40 from 17-85. On greater subject distance the difference in contrast becomes clearer.

I guess what im trying to say is, it all depends on what your needs are. If shooting mostly outdoors and wide go for the 17-40. If you need a versatile allround lense that covers most situations go for the 17-85, you wont be able to see any difference in 90% of the shots anyway.

Dont get me wrong, i love my 17-40 - but i should never have parted with my 17-85.

And remember, in the end its all subjective anyway

For what its worth, the 17-40 is certainly reviewed better over at Fred Miranda than the 17-85.

I have not used the 17-40 but do have the 17-85 and as my arsenal of lenses increases with some having a bit better IQ, I still find I used the 17-85 half the time because of the range. I find that I am very often shooting in social situations and this zoom range works great. If I am going for candids and portraits I will opt for a prime, usually my 85 1.8 and hopefully my soon to be aquired 50 1.4. I do not find the distortion on my lense bad at all, even on the wide end.

I went thru the same thing regarding those two lenses. In the end I went with the 17-85, choosing practicality over L envy. It's not all that slower than the 17-40, has twice the range, and the image stabilization is good for an extra 3 stops. Optically no L, but suites my needs just fine.

I have the 17-40 and find it a superb lens for what I use it for,the best thing for you to do is go and try both lenses and see for yourself.

Just got a 17-85 and I love it. If I Had only known, I would have played football with the 18-55 kit lens a loooong time ago!

The IS works extremely well and the focus is accuate and fast. I also like the build quality.

Only thing is, it isn't an L, but it is built very well.