EF-S 17-55 IS vs. EF-S 17-85 IS vs EF 24-70 L vs EF 24-105 L

Hi, I'm new to the forum...





I'm buying a 7D this christmas, I had a panasonic DMC-FZ3 (stolen) and various different DSLRs borrowed from friends to take pre-wed and other photographies...


Now I have to funds to buy my own camera and I want a good lens coupled with it


My options are theEF-S 17-85 IS,EF-S 17-55 IS, EF 24-70 L and the EF 24-105 L


why is the 17-85 is on the list? I want to compare the picture quality of the 17-85 and the 17-55 (as I cannot really directly compare the two lenses if they did not take the same picture) and I want to know wether the 17-55 is worth the extra money over the 17-85. And also buying the 17-85 helps me on purchasing the 70-200 2.8 L IS faster :)


I shoot everything (indoor and outdoor) and I like bokeh (a lot). So I am really looking for the ultimate multi purpose lens.fund wise, I'm able to purchase those 3 lenses and I am not planning to upgrade my body until.... maybe next 4-5 years? and feel the need to upgrade.


I really appreciate your suggestions. Thanks

Well first of all. I don't have or had the 17-85 but I really doubt it,s quality.


Maybe this helps:


http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_17-85_4-5p6_is_usm_c16/


For a really nice lens you could also look into the Tamron 17-50 2.8, that's a really nice and high quality lens. Only downside is that it doesn't have the USM that canon lenses have, so for sports, it's not ideal. For everything else it is Perfect!


That being said, I had the Tamron 17-50 but I mainly shoot sports, so I bought the 17-55 2.8 IS from canon. This is really a very nice and sharp lens. Read the reviews and find that it matches or even exceeds L lenses.


About the 24-70 L .... I think for a 7D it's not a really good choice. With the crop factor, you get to little wideangle in my opinion. Build quality might be very high, but if you handle with care, the 17-55 sure is just as great for half the price. Also it lacks the IS, which is for most people a really nice feature. Looking over your budget...buying this lens will definitely not help you buy a 70-200 over a short period of time :P Looking at pros and cons, I really don't think this lens is worth the money on a APSbody such as 7D.


About the 24-105... I never had it, so I can't really tell you my opinion. I can remind you of a small things which might help you decide.


First of all, it is an L lens so the build and imagequality should be really good. Although, the maximum aperture is "only" F4 which could be annoying indoors. f2.8 is really much better.


Again 24mm is not wide enough to put on an APS in my honest opinion. I think you will want to buy a 10-24 or something later to cover that up.


IS is really a nice feature, also noticing the maximum aperture.





I say, try to get your options to about 2-3 lenses and then try them at your local store and see what you like most. Good luck

You can compare shots of the same image right here, as long as that image is an ISO chart. :)


You can find that here. At 17mm the 17-85 has more CA. At higher lengths, 17-85 is significantly less sharp. And of course, it's variableaperture means it cannot perform very well in low light, and outright can't produce the same shallow DOF as the 17-55 can. It does give you a bit more reach, but if you want that reach, don't mind the variable aperture, look into the 15-85 as it looks to be a much sharper lens... though I'm waiting for Bryan's much more informed review.

Hey and welcome to the forums.


To your question - it's one of the most difficult questions in photography I believe.


Few months ago (about 6 months) I've been in a very similar situation as you are facing right now, with the only difference being my smaller budget.


Before I say a few words regarding the lens, I though I'd suggest you to buy a 50D instead of a 7D. Yes, the 7D is better and I'd trade my 50D for a 7D in a heart beat if someone (somehow) would like to make such a trading with me [:D], but since you are on a budget, I suggest that you put the ~$700 price difference toward either more than 1 lens or a better lens.


Now to lenses - currently my only lens is the 17-85. I picked it up rather than the suggested above Tamron lens since Bryan (if memory serves) wrote in his review that the Tamron AF accuracy and speed are not that good - check his review as I'm not 100% sure he said exactly that so go and check for yourself. Also, it doesn't have a fast and quiet USM motor nor does it have FTM (full time manual) which is bad for me as I might turn the focusing ring without switching to MF first.


IQ-wise, people here and on other places have said before that the Tamron 17-50 IQ is superb, and some claim that it's even sharper than the Canon 24-70. So, I suggest that you at least read a few reviews and consider the Tamron as well and see if it's good for your needs - maybe it is... (but it's not for me at least).


It's really hard to pick a lens from your list, really hard - but there is one lens in that list that unless for some reason you really really need it, I'd let it go. It's the 24-70 - I've once held it and it's big and heavy as a cannon (Canon? [:P]). It also lack the IS and "a little bit too many" people had problems with this lens even though it was a brand new one.


So far, if like me, the Tamron is not good for your needs, we are left with 3 lenses: 17-85, 17-55 and 24-105.


Sometimes I really wish I had the IQ of the 17-55. Two things though about it make me think twice before considering this lens:


1. 55mm is too short for me most of the time - but if you plan to have a 70-200 soon maybe it won't bother you. Remember though that switching lenses takes time too.


2. For a $1000 lens, I'd expect it to be built like all the other L lenses - metal and not cheap (or expensive) plastic. I keep all my equipment safe and secure, but I still would like to have rugged and well built lenses rather than the plastic toys. Toys are for kids, not for $1000's equipment. But then again, I'd expect a $1000+ body to be FULLY weather sealed but somehow it's not... I guess Canon marketing guys don't agree with me on that one (I wish you burn in hell damn marketing guys - j/k of course [:P])


And #1 and #2 above lead me directly to the 24-105 *L* - which is long (105mm), (should have) great IQ since it's an "L", has IS, pretty fast aperture and has a great build quality.


What's the biggest downside in the 24-105 IMO is the wide end - 24mm on a 1.6 camera body is simply not wide enough for many situations.


Few things regarding the 17-85: sometimes it's IQ and/or slow aperture simply suck. With that said, MUCH MUCH more times it's IQ make you say "wow, I've never thought that a $500 lens could shine like that".


I highly recommend that you read this: Shooting with Canon’s Best Walk Around Lens!


And even though that I haven't had a chance to shoot with other walk around lenses, I'm almost sure that the name of the above article is the best way one could use to describe the Canon EF-S 17-85 lens.


Last thing: I know that it's VERY wrong to judge lens/camera according to small pictures we see in the web, but yet I thought I'd share this... unless you plan to have really big prints (bigger than 23x15 inch [~60x40 cm]), consider the below 2 pictures. One was shot with a 40D + 17-85 while the other was taken with a 5D mk2 + 24-105.


First picture: Landscape Photography – Grand Old Cypress


Second picture: Rainy Day Photography – Always Something to Shoot


Try not to read the Exif info of each picture at first. I could post the 2 pictures directly here, but I don't want to do that without permission from the photographer so I posted above 2 links to his blog posts with the 2 pictures.


That's it for now, there are still a lot of things to say. I told you all the important things that I think you should know and might be interested in. Now go and read more reviews and do more checks and tests. Also don't forget to do a very important thing - go and try those lenses in your hands with a camera body. Either go to a camera shop, barrow from friends or rent.


Good luck and happy shooting! [H]

As you are buying a top-of-the-line APS-C type camera, it makes sense to get the best lens for it. I wouldn't get the EF-S 17-85 IS if optical quality is your highest consideration. Optically, there is little to choose between the remaining candidates. Check out the reviews on this site and others.


I own the EF-S 17-55 IS f/2.8 and the EF 24-105 L IS f/4. They are both great lenses, although I use the 17-55 more on my 40D because:


1. It's faster.


2. It's a better fit range-wise from wide to moderate zoom for my needs on a APS-C sized sensor.


3. It's lighter, and that makes a difference on camera you carry all day.


I've considered buying the 24-70mm f/2.8 in the past and am considering it more these days now that I have a full-frame 5D II but I'm holding off as I don't need it immediately and I suspect a 24-70mm IS version is not too far down the pipeline. For me, IS is very important. If I'm not using a tripod, I will shake!

I can't agree with Oren...17-85 lens is in my opinion not really much better then the standard 18-55. Only more range and usm. I will choose the tamron over it at any time. Color, contrast, sharpness...in other words image quality is excellent. The reason I traded it for the 17-55 from canon is not quality! I shoot a lot of sports and when for example somebody runs up to me, the tamron wasn't fast enough in like 2/3 times. That's the only reason. The AF is fast enough for all standard walk-around photo's, but can lack a bit during sports photography.


By the way, just look at the amount of 17-85 lenses that are traded in by people who are not satisfied and want something else. Really the second hand market for these lenses is huge. Could say something about the lens...just think about it :P


I have a 70-200 f4 L as my second zoom-lens and the amount of mm you loose (from 50/55 mm till 70mm) you really won't miss.


I don't know about the new 15-85 though but it might be a good lens for you as well. Wait for the reviews.

Wow... you guys really have the heart to help me... Thanks so much





@oren: I love objective views so I respect you for that, truly both images capture the details and both is almost equally sharp, but I have to argue that both pictures did not show the ability of the lenses themselves as the picture is edited. The reason I'm buying the 7D over the 50D (Believe me, it took me months to decide the 7D over the 50D) is I want the video capability... I have written, shoot and direct 2 movies and several short films with both miniDV and DVD camcorders, and I don't like the end results (colorwise)... So I'm going to pay the $700 extra $$$ :) convince me to buy the 500D, since I don't fancy the body size, no top lcd, 3.3 fps shooting...


@the others: Thanks so much for the inputs, I think I'll buy the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS. as from bryan's review and your inputs, it really benefits as the ultimate all round lens... Thanks so much...





btw, if you guys have any more suggestions than the lenses that I list down here, don't hesitate to speak up :)

No get the 7D. The 500D only has 20fps in 1080p mode I think. 7D got 30fps, so for a little action, this really is a major step up.


The 2.8 lens can get you some killer video's with the shallow DOF...although it should be hard to make, but I think they can and then will kick some serious butt :D


Good luck

<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 8pt;"]In my experience, the 24-105 is the sharpest I have seen compared to the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, and the 24-70 f/2.8L.<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 8pt;"]The only down side of the 24-105 is that its an f/4 lense. (technically you can compensate it via shutter/ aperture /iso combinations to gain an extra stop)


<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 8pt;"]<o:p>I use the 24-105 about 40% of the time too!</o:p>


<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 8pt;"]<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 8pt;"]<o:p>-e</o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]</o:p>