Swap the 17-85 is for the 17-40l?? Decisions!!

Hi all,

After all the expert advice given over my last lens choice, I'm now wondering whether I should upgrade my 17-85 kit lens to the 17-40l. I have a 60mm prime and a 70-200 also so am just trying to make sure I have a good range of lenghts covered. DO you think it's worth upgrading, for quality, etc?

Any help gratefully received!!

Thanks

David

I've toyed with this choice, but I actually find my 17-85 to be pretty decent. The AF is really good, the IS is nice and of course the range is great! Now if you find the 17-20mm lacking on the 17-85 (it's weakest focal lengths in my opinion), then I'm sure the 17-40 would be an improvement. Also, if you go full frame, the 17-40 becomes an awesome ultra-wide-angle.

Oh, as for coverage, you should be fine with 17-40, 60, 70-200.

I replaced a 17-85 with a 17-40 and I much prefer the 17-40 for build and image quality. However, I found the 17-40 to be too short on focal length for use as a general walkabout lens. To cut a long story short, I recently bought a 24-105L and I wish I had done that in the first place. Although not as wide at the short end as the 17-40, it does have image stabilisation like the 17-85 and it has greater zoom. Most importantly, the image quality for me is stunning. I could almost get away with the 24-105 instead of my 17-40 and 135L. Just as a bonus, with an extension ring it is really good for general macro.

I love my 17-40. It is a lens I use for every wedding---and very happy with the results it gives. It is my walk around lens for daily use also. I think it really kicks butt on the 5D.

I might be inclined to opt for a 24-105 now, and in the future opt for the 10-22 for UWA

depends on what you do

what kind of photos do you take

how many body do you have?

are you sure you are going to swap lens everytime you need a certain focal length?

i.e.
sure u get 17-40L .. but you will be lacking anything between 40 to 70mm
prime is great ... but are you going to swap lens all the time when u need it?

If you have a rebel series camera, you could also go with the 17-55 EF-S. It has IS, and the image quality is supposed to be quite a bit better than the 17-85.

Some good points...thanks!

Think I might save up a bit more and wait to get the 24-105 ~ at the moment anyway!!

David

beegeeboy wrote in post #6063636
Some good points...thanks!

Think I might save up a bit more and wait to get the 24-105 ~ at the moment anyway!!

David

It is truly a great lens and it has transformed my camera! You would not be disappointed.
Ian

What Canon needs for crop bodies is a 15-50.

Mike55 wrote in post #6066494
What Canon needs for crop bodies is a 15-50.

17-55/2.8 IS not close enough for you?

xarqi wrote in post #6066595
17-55/2.8 IS not close enough for you?

Nope. I'd like the proper 24-105 equivalent for a 1.6x crop.

Zooms. Pah! I'm finding my shots to be better composed each day since I use a normal prime as a walkaround now. I only whip out the 17-40 if there's a nice landscape or architectural structure I need to capture.

A prime will teach you patience and composition. I don't give in to others who try and get all ranges covered--that's why you have your feet!

If you plan on keeping 1.6 crop, why not just get a 10-22? Much wider, handles 16-20mm quite nicely, about the same price, etc.

basroil wrote in post #6066663
If you plan on keeping 1.6 crop, why not just get a 10-22? Much wider, handles 16-20mm quite nicely, about the same price, etc.

Different range altogether.

I shoot a 17-40L on a 40D, and just did a lot of urban stuff. Pics have excellent contrast, but ALSO there's a TON of detail. In post processing, more detail gives you a lot more options.

But swapping? I dunno, I think it would come down to your workflow, intended output, and if you think that having this lens on, that you are willing to swap if you want to shoot in the 40-85 range.

I