17-55 vs. 17-85 per request.

Here are three test shots I did to compare these two lens. I have been asked by a few people to do a quick comparison, (my first) and I am here to tell you, any lens comparison is not QUICK! lol

The first seq the edge goes to the 17-55 for better control over chromatic aberration, lens distortion, and over IQ.

See how the window, and the corner of the room, come in on you? There is also more lens vignetting as well to the right around white high chair on the 17-85. I am using the clock on the left to compare over all IQ. Maybe stopped down an f stop or two the 17-85 might have better IQ and control over CA making it a very dark lens zoomed out.

17-55

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

Thanks for the comparo BigAlz. I think the 85 hangs in there pretty good. Having said that, the low level lighting advantage and lower distortion would sure make a big difference when wandering a city at day or night.

BigAlz1 thanks for posting this comparison. I have heard about the distortion on the wide end of the 17-85 and your first couple of shots certainly support this.

I'm surprised to see the 17-85 come out on top in the second test, but this may be close to the sweet spot for the 17-85. Not sure if it would be repeated in real life shots outside.

Its the range of the 17-85 that is attractive, its just so convenient. But the distortion on the wide end would probably be enough to make me stay clear of it.

Congrats on your new lens, I've have no doubt you'll love it.

Well guys I am hear to tell you range (to me) is nothing if the ISO is turned to extreme high or you are fighting the hard light of a built in flash or you are looking for the right angles to bounce flash. And the brokeh at 5.6 just isn't where it's at for portraiture IMO. Been there and done all that with the 17-85 and the 28-135 and the 28-105. I wouldn't take all three of them for this lens.
I think I will do another round of comparisons to show the other aspects of these two lenses. I own both and you will not get this 17-55 out of my grubby hands until I go to a FF, even then I may keep a crop lens just to keep the 17-55. Yes its that good in real world usage.

Great comparison, Thanks. I was wondering the difference between these 2 lenses.

thanks for comparing the two. I've owned the 17-85mm and was always curious how it compared to the 17-55mm. As a previous owner of the 17-85mm, the range & price definitely make it a great budget alternative to the 17-55mm. The IS and USM on the 17-85mm was quite good, and I felt the same way about it's overall sharpness. Unless you absolutely NEED the f/2.8, the 17-85mm is a great choice for crops IMO (even then, you'd have to ask yourself if $1000 + a good UV filter is worth the massive price difference)

Thanks for doing this. I think it clearly shows that the 17-85 is a good value at about 1/3 the price of the 17-55.

BigAlz1 wrote in post #7591352
.

17-55

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

17-85

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

Interesting comparison! I have to say though that the baby chair seat fabric and the pink glass/thing in the middle look like they have a new coat of paint in the 17-55 version.

I had not looked that hard at it, it was a distortion test but now that I look closer your right, look at the squares with the puppy dogs in it on the high chair, the purples are way louder and the greens too on the 17-55.
I will do better IQ test tomorrow in a more "real world" type of set up. I am not pleased with these tests at all but it is what it is.

Notice the 17-85 is slightly brighter then the 17-55, I wonder if that is due to one of the lenses av not truly spot on at 4.0? Weird ill have to compare them more tomorrow. I know the light and the camera didn't change!