18-55 IS Better Lens Than 17-85 IS?

On Fred Miranda website, I think the 17-85 IS USM is rated at 7.6, but the new 18-55 IS is rated about 8.5.

I have the 17-85 IS and am thinking about possibly selling it and getting a new, less expensive 18-55 IS.

Would this be a good idea or is the 17-85 IS a better lens?

Chappy wrote in post #9194928
On Fred Miranda website, I think the 17-85 IS USM is rated at 7.6, but the new 18-55 IS is rated about 8.5.

I have the 17-85 IS and am thinking about possibly selling it and getting a new, less expensive 18-55 IS.

Would this be a good idea or is the 17-85 IS a better lens?

sites like www.photozone.de indicate the 18-55IS is a sharper lens than the 17-85 - if you can live with the reduced range it may be worth it

We have both in my household, and as I'm the one who has to process the images, I can say that I have not seen any difference. They are both used on 10MP bodies. The 17-85 has some potentially significant advantages which I, for one, would not give up even if the cheaper lens was sharper. Which is debatable.

Have you read the recent thread about the 17-85mm, by the way?

I've used both. I personally like the 17-85 better. Bigger range, much better AF. IQ is similar.

Ade H wrote in post #9195587
Have you read the recent thread about the 17-85mm, by the way?

I googled it and found some threads relating to this comparison. I seem to find a lot of people that say the 18-55 IS is sharper. Maybe someday I'll get one and try it out, and if I like it as much as the 17-85, sell the 17-85 and keep the 18-55 IS.

I can do without USM. The 18-55 IS is supposed to have a lot less distortion at the low end. My 17-85 has bad distortion at 17-24mm.

"Bad" distortion from 17 to 24mm? Did you drop it?

There is certainly distortion at 17mm, which may or may not make itself really obvious depending on the scene. But when it does, it's easy to fix.

Ade H wrote in post #9197918
"Bad" distortion from 17 to 24mm? Did you drop it?

If I can sell if for $350 and buy a 18-55 for $100, I saved $250. I don't know if the 17-85 is worth $250 more than a 18-55.

Things I like about the 17-85 are the extra 1 mm at the wide end. The build is nice too and the USM, although I can do w/o USM. The colors may be better with the 17-85 IS.

That said, the 18-55 IS is a great "bang for the buck" lens and is probably loads better than the older 18-55 non IS.

Maybe you talked me into keeping the 17-85 IS. I won't part with it unless someone wants to pay me $550 for it. One day I'll get an 18-55 IS and compare them, then decide which one to keep. I really don't think I want to go back to non IS lenses again.

I'm the opposite to that: I can take or leave the IS (it's off more often than not) but I could not cover some of my favourite subjects without fast AF. If the subject is static, I usually use a tripod.

I recently sold my 17-85mm (not due to unhappiness, though), and you'll be very very lucky to get $350 for it.....

I think the kit IS lens is rate high for the money. The 17-85 was far more expensive initially, and therefore had a lot of justifiable earlier detractors. But, at it's street used price now ($250-300), it's a pretty nice lens. I've sold off my crop stuff now, but that was my walk-around lens. I would only move from that lens to one of the 2.8 walk-arounds.

WT21 wrote in post #9198514
I think the kit IS lens is rate high for the money. The 17-85 was far more expensive initially, and therefore had a lot of justifiable earlier detractors. But, at it's street used price now ($250-300), it's a pretty nice lens. I've sold off my crop stuff now, but that was my walk-around lens. I would only move from that lens to one of the 2.8 walk-arounds.

+1

The 18-55 IS is good at its price range (just like the nifty fifty).