Keep Canon 17-85 or replace with...

[Derek Reese]

I need some advice on a good walk-around lens. Currently, I have the EF-S 17-85mm f/4.5-5.6 USM lens for this purpose but am wondering if another lens will provide a noticeable improvement. Specifically, I'm looking at the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM, EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM, and EF 24-105mm f/4 L USM. My main body is a 50D with a 350D for backup. I have the following lenses:


EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
EF-S 17-85mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM


Generally, the 17-85 has provided good results for me. I tend to not go below 24mm with this lens because of the severe barrel distortion. Sometimes I feel the lens isn't as sharp as I would like and it is relatively slow at f/4.5-5.6 -- although this isn't a terribly big deal since 17-85 is generally used outdoors.


So, will I see a real-world difference over my current EF-S 17-85 with any of these three lenses? If so, which would be my best choice given the lenses I have? Or should I stick with my current 17-85?

[alexniedra]

Hey Derek - Welcome to the forum!


I can say that both lenses will impress you. I would look at it in terms of the future. Do you plan to ultimately upgrade to full frame? If so, I would consider the 24-70 L for you. It is an absolutely fantastic lens in every way. Except for price - That's why you can sell the 17-85 in the Buy/Sell forum []


If you don't plan to go full frame, take a look at that 17-55 - Also a great lens, with IS, which will help significantly in certain situations. However, I don't suggest turning down the 24-70 L just beceause it doesn't have IS. IS is believed to be less necessary at the shorter focal lengths. Again, it's all about your need - And since you're frequently outdoors, I don't see IS as a feature that will make or break your choice.



Anyway, I hope I have provided you with some useful insight.


- Alex

[Derek Reese]

Thanks Alex. I don't know if I will go full frame at some point, but I'd like to. So that does make me hesitant to get another EF-S lens. How is the 24-105 compared to the 24-70? Very similar image quality? I like the speed of the 24-70, but then the range of the 24-105 is nice, although I do have >70mm covered right now. Since this lens will primarily be used outdoors, I don't know if the f/2.8 of the 24-70 will be that big of an advantage.

[Todd Ovick]

Derek, I use a 350D and a 5D. I purchased the 24-105L while using my 350D and noticed an extreme improvement in image quality. I then purchased a 5D and I love the 24-105L combination with that as well. Since then I have had "L lense fever" and do not use EFS lens'. Since you are needing a great walk around lens for outdoor use, I would suggest the 24-105L.

[Derek Reese]

Do you have any issues with barrel distortion or pincusion with the 24-105? According to the review here there is some on the 24-105. Is it very noticeable? It is VERY apparent on the 17-85 below 24mm to the point where I don't use the 17-85 below 24mm anymore.

[Todd Ovick]

Derek, Ther is a small amout of barrel distortion on my 5d (full framer) at 24mm, but if your using a 50D with a 1.6 crop you should not notice it. At least I did not notice it on my 350D.

[Derek Reese]

So optically, are the 24-70 and 24-105 equivalent (image quality-wise)? Or is one sharper than the other? If they are equal then I thnk I might lean more towards the 24-105 because of the reach (less lens changes). I like the f/2.8 on the 24-70, but I don't think I'll need that very often because indoors I generally use the 35 f/1.4 L and 85 f/1.8.

[Sean Setters]

Darek, I own the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and absolutely love it. I also own the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS, but the 17-55 stays on my 50D about 90% of the time. It really is a fantastic lens. On a crop body, I don't think there's a better general purpose lens. However, if you think you'll upgrade to a full-frame camera in the near future, then definitely go with the 24-105mm f/4 L IS or the 24-70mm f/2.8 L. That said, if you think you'll hold on to your 50D for a while, get the 17-55. When you do upgrade to a full-framer, the 17-55 should hold its value fairly well when you need to sell it. As far as image quality is concerned, it's an "L" lens without the ring.

[Todd Ovick]

Derek, I have never used the 24-70L. I cannot comment on overall sharpess. I used my 24-105L at an outdoor wedding last fall and it was exceptionally versitile and images were very sharp, especially stopped down 1x. Any noticeable sharpening that i need i would do in post. You can't beat the extra focal length. I will always keep my 24-105L unless there is a new release of an f/2.8 version...then I would need to see some reviews on that one.

[Colin]

24-105 as well, though you know, I went back and forth between 70-105mm, and it didn't seem like a really huge difference. It is nice tohave.


One of the things I really like, though, is that for a serious full frame zoom, it's relatively small and stealthy.