17-40L is not L and a just stuffed in a 16-35L body!

LOL WUT?

Where did this information start from? <from a discussion tonight>

https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=6980352&po​stcount=19

cheers!

If that's true, then can I just buy the glass from canon on the cheap and upgrade my EXCELLENT 17-40L? What do I do about the the different filter size. Is there a rebate

/sarcasm

Wow. You made a thread just to point out what the fellow said.

I'm curious now.

I have heard that it doesn't have front sealing. Please elaborate if you know that it's not truly an L.

....well I have to admit I'm a little bit envious of the OP who claims his 17-85 is better than all them dang "L" lenses. He is going to be happy as a clam, and gonna save a LOT of money on glass !!!

Hey....we all gotta do what makes us happy with this stuff !

George W

I'm the OP and I tested the 24-70L next to the 17-85USM. The 17-85USM had bad barrel distortion, granted. But at smaller apertures, f/8, it was equal or better than the 24-70L in sharpness. I had, and posted, side-by-side images taken on the same 20D body to prove it. I also stated that if you need full-frame coverage, the 24-70 was a great lens. The point I was making was that the "red ring of retail" does not necessarily mean it's the best around.

Another thing - when people say their lens is "excellent", to what are they comparing it to? I, as you can imagine, had lots of people objecting to my claims but low and behold, NOT ONE had done a side-by-side comparison of any lens they were arguing about. I was the ONLY ONE who owned both the 24-70L and the 17-85 USM at the same time and took photos on a single body.

Listen folks, I'm not slamming your equipment. All I was telling a poster was that they should NOT assume a red ring of paint on the lens means it's the best for their needs. Before you slam my statements, I ask that you base your opinions on a true comparison, not photos you like.

george m w wrote in post #6980734
....well I have to admit I'm a little bit envious of the OP who claims his 17-85 is better than all them dang "L" lenses. He is going to be happy as a clam, and gonna save a LOT of money on glass !!!

Hey....we all gotta do what makes us happy with this stuff !

George W

I rather enjoy my 17-40. The 17-85 doesn't really help those of us on FF.

- Chris

You're correct, if you're FF the 24-70 is a great lens...you go on enjoying it. All I'm stating is that the "own an L at any price" is not necessarily correct...Canon makes other lenses that perform just as well for certain needs.

Gimpy00Wang wrote in post #6980818
I rather enjoy my 17-40. The 17-85 doesn't really help those of us on FF.

- Chris

Nothing personal intended Best Visuals. Re-read my post: I did not slam your statement....in fact I stated I'm a bit envious. You are are happy with lenses that are costing you fewer dollars than the lenses that I happen to be buying.
I had the 17-85 for over a year, and I have many nice photos from it. It was my walkaround lens. As I looked through many of my shots, I realized that I rarely shot it wide open, and also rarely shot it at 85, so I decided to sell it and try a 24-70, since the range seemed to fit my needs better, as well as having a constant f/2.8 aperture. I later decided that I would try a 17-40, and wound up buying it as well to use for my attempt at landscape stuff, and also because I plan to buy a FF body. ( I'm close to pulling the trigger on a used 1DS....so it should be fun ! )
Again I like the constant aperture. To your original point, to make the statement that the 17-40 is not an "L", is simply an inaccurate comment.

I would have been curious to put your copies of the 17-40 and the 17-85 on my 50D and spend some time doing AF micro adjust just to see if the results might have been different after some adjustment. Moot point.

If I offended you with my comments, kindly accept my apologies. No offense was intended. I don't come to these forums to rain on anyones parade....as I said, we all gotta do what makes us happy with this stuff. I'm glad you are enjoying your choices in equipment. Like you, I still have a 20D that I use regularly....now THERE is THE bargain of the time IMO. Still a great camera that can be had for just plain bargain dollars.

best regards, george w

Very true. My 50 1.4, and 85 1.8 are prime ( pardon the pun ) examples of that.

George W

syntrix wrote in post #6980719
it's not truly an L.

Huh?

BestVisuals wrote in post #6980761
I'm the OP and I tested the 24-70L next to the 17-85USM. The 17-85USM had bad barrel distortion, granted. But at smaller apertures, f/8, it was equal or better than the 24-70L in sharpness.

lol, so you'll find many lenses are similar from f8 and up. It's sharpness in the centers and corners at large apertures that make some glass more expensive than others. In low light situation, the 24-70 will perform much better than the 17-85.

It wasn't just f/8, the USM performed equally as well as the 24-70 as wide open as f/5.6. I tested each and every aperture and there was no overriding reason to buy the 24-70L. The 17-85USM has three, count 'em, three aspherical elements and is more recently engineered than the 24-70L. The 17-85 has really bad barrel distortion and some CA wide open at 17mm. It's by no means perfect. But the 24-70L wasn't significantly better overall, weighed 2x as much and cost 2x as much.

I just went looking for the comparison photos between the 17-85mm and the 24-70. They were taken about 3 years ago and since then my computer has had its boot drive reformatted. None of my triple backup drives have the photos, and all likelyhood after posting them (here?) I had made my purchase decision so I didn't keep them around.

Look folks, let's stop this discussion. No one has offended me and I mean to offend no one. If you like your lens collection, use it to your heart's content. By no means do I wish to upset anyone's apple cart.

braidkid wrote in post #6980881
lol, so you'll find many lenses are similar from f8 and up. It's sharpness in the centers and corners at large apertures that make some glass more expensive than others. In low light situation, the 24-70 will perform much better than the 17-85.

BestVisuals wrote in post #6980926
I tested each and every aperture and there was no overriding reason to buy the 24-70L.

Did you test them both at f/2.8? ...or even f/4 @ 70mm.

- Chris

No, the 17-85mm is a variable aperture lens, and it wasn't fair to compare the two lenses at anything other than their common focal lengths and apertures. This means I stopped testing the 17-85mm at 70mm, and at 24mm as the 24-70 was more limited in its zoom range.

Love the lens you're with!

Gimpy00Wang wrote in post #6980988
Did you test them both at f/2.8? ...or even f/4 @ 70mm.

- Chris

For what its worth, most lenses look great at f8. It's hard to find one that doesn't. That said, the price of the 24-70L (and most fast zooms) is pretty much all in the larger aperture. If you don't need f2.8, then more power to ya...