Canon zoom lenses

[Busa_Rush]

Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM £930
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM £700
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM £300

Can anybody who has used lenses like this please comment on the image quality and sharpness I might achieve with them ? Any comments about the benefits of each ? I understand the technical differences between them but don't want to buy the £300 lens only to find out in a years time that I really ought to have bought a f2.8 lens.

Most of my photography is outdoor, low-ish light landscapes and nature with the odd bit of track day. Camera is Canon 50D.

[MonkeyHanger]

Forget the 17-85.

If it was my cash, i'd be ordering the 17-55 2.8 IS without a second thought. It's not a million miles away from the 24-70L in terms of image quality, plus it's cheaper and wider on a 1.6x body. I'm seriously considering buying one for the 7D, as my widest lens is currently the 24-105 f4...

[DiscoColin]

MonkeyHanger said:

Forget the 17-85.

If it was my cash, i'd be ordering the 17-55 2.8 IS without a second thought. It's not a million miles away from the 24-70L in terms of image quality, plus it's cheaper and wider on a 1.6x body. I'm seriously considering buying one for the 7D, as my widest lens is currently the 24-105 f4...

Might be good for landscapes, but unless you're into car park shots it will be way, way too short for the OP's track day requirement (in fact, IMHO the 24-70 will be too for that matter).

[Hedgeman]

Check out http://www.the-digital-picture.com/ - detailed reviews of all the models you're considering.

[MonkeyHanger]

DiscoColin said:

MonkeyHanger said:

Forget the 17-85.

If it was my cash, i'd be ordering the 17-55 2.8 IS without a second thought. It's not a million miles away from the 24-70L in terms of image quality, plus it's cheaper and wider on a 1.6x body. I'm seriously considering buying one for the 7D, as my widest lens is currently the 24-105 f4...

Might be good for landscapes, but unless you're into car park shots it will be way, way too short for the OP's track day requirement (in fact, IMHO the 24-70 will be too for that matter).

"odd bit of track day".

To be honest i wouldn't use any of them for trackside work, and i do a lot more than the "odd" bit of that...

[RobDickinson]

Busa_Rush said:

Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM £930
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM £700
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM £300

Can anybody who has used lenses like this please comment on the image quality and sharpness I might achieve with them ? Any comments about the benefits of each ? I understand the technical differences between them but don't want to buy the £300 lens only to find out in a years time that I really ought to have bought a f2.8 lens.

Most of my photography is outdoor, low-ish light landscapes and nature with the odd bit of track day. Camera is Canon 50D.

24-70f2.8L I've reviewed here(part1) and here(part2). Its an excelent lens, but heavy and IMOnot wide enough for a take one lens out trip for most.

I bought a 17-55IS (will 'review' it soon), it has a great range on a crop and the image quality is as sharp (or sharper) than the 24-70, the bokeh isnt quite as good, build isnt as good , but it is smaller and lighter. I'm happy with the lens.


17-85 is utter dire crap realy. Slow, distorts, soft wide open, not so sharp stopped down, CA etc. Its effectivly been replaced by the much improved 15-85, as sharp as the 17-55 (tho vignettes and distorts more) but slower.

[Dogsey]

RobDickinson said:

... the much improved 15-85, as sharp as the 17-55 (tho vignettes and distorts more) but slower.

Interested to hear more about this lens, it's one I'm seriously considering as an everyday walkabout lens.

[plg101]

The 17-55 2.8 IS is an excellent lens; fast and IS helps. Can hand hold with the right conditions down to 1/2 sec...

Only downside - it's not sealed (but few are at this price). Many rate it as as good as the 17-40L in terms of optics, but no EF-S carries the L tag.

I will only change mine when I go full frame to a 5d Mk2, when I will go for the 24-105 or the 24-70.

[M-J-B]

I've had a 24-70 on a 50D for a couple of months as my main lens and aside from the weight it's a cracking lens

Sharp as hell and it just feels 'right'

[plg101]

M-J-B said:

I've had a 24-70 on a 50D for a couple of months as my main lens and aside from the weight it's a cracking lens

Sharp as hell and it just feels 'right'

I guess the only downside of a 24-70 on a 50D is the crop ratio?

[RobDickinson]

plg101 said:

I guess the only downside of a 24-70 on a 50D is the crop ratio?

Yep, the one I had ap lay with was an excelent tool , sharp everywhere, fast, fast af, great bokeh.

I felt I'd always need to carry the 10-20 tho.

[plg101]

RobDickinson said:

plg101 said:

I guess the only downside of a 24-70 on a 50D is the crop ratio?

Yep, the one I had ap lay with was an excelent tool , sharp everywhere, fast, fast af, great bokeh.

I felt I'd always need to carry the 10-20 tho.

Nice review. Great bokeh on the 24-70. I want one....

(Moglet looks like a nice cat - she(?) is identical to one of my old mogs)

[ash reynolds]

I have an EOS 40D with which I use a Canon 17-40 F4L as a standard lens and can vouch for the image and build quality. Best I've had.
As an aside...in the longer lens dept, a Sigma 100-300 F4 EX DG will be sure to impress. I bought one a while back before the prices shot skywards. I use it at Goodwood alot and have never had a moderate telezoom which is as sharp as this. Simply stunnng lens.

[Rob13]

I've got the 17-85mm with the 40D kit and at the moment, I am weighing up a 10-22 or 10-20.

In time I will look to replace the kit lens with something like a 24-105. I want a tele lens too so I think I'm going to be spending some money on glass over the next year!

[4hero]

I would suggest two different lenses for your needs. Either the sigma 10-20 (or canon 10-22) for landscapes and a 70-200 of sorts for motorsport.

[Rob13]

Anyone used a 15-85 yet? How much better are they?

After trying out the 50mm 1.8, I now know what they mean by difference!