Canon 17-40 f4 L USM v. Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM Photo Gallery by lightrules at pbase.com

Canon 17-40 f4 L USM v. Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM

Dec 8 2005. I just received a brand new 17-40L (Date code 10/05) in recent days and decided to put it up against the 17-85IS. A few quick comments on these lenses:

*The L build is leagues above the EFS.
*The L zoom ring is butter smooth with perfect tension/dampening, while the EFS zoom ring is cheap feeling.
*The IS on the EFS lens is a huge boon.
*The focal range of the EFS lens makes it much more versatile as a walk around.
*The ring USM of each lens are excellent: both are fast, though the L seems to be a tad quieter.
*Optically, the EFS isn't too far off from the L in resolving detail (sharpness). Especially considering it also goes for another 45mm beyond the L's 40mm, that's impressive. With regards to contrast, I also don't think the difference is that significant; again an edge to the L. The L is better than the 1785 in the areas of barrel distortion, pincushioning, and vignetting.
*Each lens has its strengths and weaknesses, and choosing one lens over another ALWAYS involves SOME compromise. If you "value more" great walkaround focal range, 3rd generation IS, and lower cost, then the 1785 is the lens for you. If you "value more" build quality, FF compatibility, and better distortion and vignetting numbers, then the 1740 is for you. All in all, these are 2 excellent choices and I recommend both heartily.

Non-extended	Extended	Red ring, L-glass	Image Stabilizer
IS switch	Rear view	Side by side	Front view
Controls	Date code [Oct 2005]	ImagingInfo	Tests

comment |

lightrules		21-May-2008 17:01
See http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/fourpoundshowdown

Guest		21-May-2008 16:59
hi, i would like to see the comparison btw ef 17-40 f4 and ef-s 17-55 f2.8 which i'm using eos 450d thx, yod

lightrules		28-Apr-2006 16:24
Azmir, those are two totally different lenses. The L is a better "quality" lens in build and refinement, etc. The EX is faster and will give you better low-light performance, along with nicer bokeh IMO. In terms of image quality, they are both very good. The difference in focal length between the two lenses is not minimal, so consider which range fits your needs better. The EX is a superb lens for the money.

azmir		27-Apr-2006 03:41
compare to sigma 24-70mm f2.8 with 1740 4L canon.. which one do u prefer ? base on the quality of the images and some other stuff. Thanks

lightrules		07-Apr-2006 15:20
You've chosen a great body (30D) and a great lens (1740L). I am sure you'll be very pleased with the quality of your images. Enjoy Pedro and take care. Jojo

Guest		07-Apr-2006 09:09
Hi As I have said in another post, I have bought last week-end my "new baby": Canon 30D. The store kept the kit lens and I bought the great 17-40L, plus a used 50 1.8 (the metal one), for a good price. On sunday I went to a zoo and tried out the material. In some photos, I've pushed the sharpness to max. (7, all the rest in 0) to get some birds and ... it was amazing. At the moment I have no site, otherwise I show you the link. About the Sigma, I know it's a great lens but, I'm "afraid" of 3rd parts lens because of the missfocus. Thanks again for the great tests and specially, for always replying! King regards Pedro

lightrules		14-Mar-2006 17:05
Greetings Pedro, I think my 1785 is quite a good copy, but there is no doubt in my mind that the 1740 has better control over distortions of various kinds. I think if the focal range is good enough for you, then the 1740 is a superb lens to get: build and optics are outstanding. As for the 70200f4 v 200f2.8 v 70300is, that's a tough decision. Remember that every lens decision is a compromise of some sort. I've used both the 70200f4 and the 70300is; I've never used the 200f2.8 (though I assume it's optics are tremendous). My sense is to go for a zoom though. What do you plan to shoot? How important is IS to you? I personally like the 70300is over the 70200f4 (you can see my reasons why at my test page http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/70300s ). While the build quality isn't as good as the L, it's a much more versatile lens IMO. The L is a fine lens, but I prefer the IS lens (but this is also in the light of the fact that I also have the 70200IS and 100400IS). Have you considered also the Sigma 70200f2.8? Decide what's most important to you and decide based on that. Take care, Pedro.

Guest		14-Mar-2006 16:44
Hi Jojo After more than 20 years with my A1 and 2 years with S45, I'm thinking on buying a 20D or the new one 30D (depending on prices). About lens, I was considering 17-40L + 100 macro + 70-200L f4 or 200L 2.8 or 70-300 is (not all at one time, of course). Sure that the 17-85 with it's range and IS would be a good option (instead of 17-40), at least on paper. The problem is that after much reading, I think that there are significant diferences between the same lens (not just this one). Maybe you have already read the tests that Klaus does in www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html - here you can see the increadible distortion and CA of this lens (17-85). As I have already seen the same problems in other reviews, the conclusion must be: the same lens can be very diferent. So, I think you have the top 17-85 Canon has made ;-) For me, I think that it's more "safe" to get the 17-40. How about 70-200L f4 or 200L 2.8 or 70-300 is, for buying just one, what is your advice? Last but not the least, congratulations for having all the tests and for the good photos on the galleries too. Kind regards, Pedro / Portugal

lightrules		13-Dec-2005 03:30
The kit lens? To be honest, it never crossed my mind. If I ever get a hold of one, I'll try it out against my 1785IS. Thanks for the thought and the comment.

Guest		13-Dec-2005 03:03
hi.... could you do a comparison with the EF-S 18-55mm ?

Guest		12-Dec-2005 08:18
Hi fstopjojo, it's a pity you did not also include the EF-S 18-55. Results might be interesting. Best regards, Andythaler

click on thumbnails for full image