Canon 17-85 EF-S vs 18-55 EF-S vs. 24-85 EF
|
|
For the last couple of years, I’ve been using a Canon 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 EF lens as my general walk-around lens, first for my Canon EOS 10D, and now for the 20D. While I like the lens for its small size and light weight, the 35mm equivalent focal length range of 38 to 136mm is very often not quite wide enough for casual street shooting. While I love my Canon 10-22 EF-S lens for wide angle shooting, having to carry it and swap lenses on the street was beginning to grow tedious, so I decided to look for a new solution. For price reasons, I quickly narrowed the possible alternatives to Canon’s 18-55 EF-S and 17-85 EF-S lenses. I was very curious to see if the more expensive 17-85 yielded noticeably better quality, as well as to find out if these were good alternatives to my 24-85. |
I shot a number of images side-by-side with all three lenses, and spent some time walking about with each lens, to decide which offered the best balance of features, size/weight, and price.
Canon 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 EF-S
I had originally bought the 24-85 to use with my EOS 10D which lacked an S-mount, so I had never looked too closely the 18-55 EF-S, though I knew it was a very good value for the money. Offering a 35mm equivalent focal length range of 28-90mm, the 18-55 EF-S can be had for around $140 (cheaper if you buy it in a bundle with a camera). Because it uses an S-mount, it’s only compatible with the Canon Rebel, Rebel XT and EOS 20D.
Only 2.6" long with a diameter of 2.7" and a light weight of 6.7 oz, the 18-55 is the smallest and lightest of the three lenses compared here. It’s very easy to get used to the 18-55′s small size. Whether you’re carrying it on the camera, or in a bag full of lenses, the light weight and small size is a very nice convenience. However, if you’re a stickler for sturdy-feeling, solid gear, then the 18-55′s plastic body, and even its light weight, might leave you a little unnerved. If you’re particularly rough on gear, or tend to shoot in hostile environs, then the wimpy build of this lens might be a problem, but for the most part, the only real issues with the 18-55′s build are purely aesthetic (and, let’s face it, snobby).
Though it sports a low price, Canon has packed very good optics into the 18-55′s small body. The lens has the usual complement of lens coatings for reducing flare, as well as a single aspherical element for lessening distortion. A circular aperture provides a more attractive bokeh when shooting at wide apertures, and the lens’ USM autofocus is fast and quiet.
The 18-55 also provides a very close focusing distance of 10.8". While not a substitute for a real macro lens, the short focusing distance is still a nice option to have handy.
Next to Canon’s f/1.8 50mm EF lens, the 18-55 might be the best price/performance value in Canon’s entire line. However, it’s not particularly long on the telephoto end, and doesn’t go as wide as the other two candidates. However, it’s smaller, lighter, and substantially cheaper.
Canon EOS 20D with Canon 18-55 EF-S. JPEG conversion from a camera raw file. No sharpening applied. Click for full res.
Canon 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS EF-S
Offering a slightly wider wide end, and a much longer telephoto end than the 18-55 EF-S, at $600, Canon’s 17-85 also has a much higher price tag. However, you get a lot for the extra money.
With a 35mm equivalent zoom range of 28-135, the 17-85 offers the ideal zoom range for typical walk-around shooting. It’s safe to say that this range covers 80% of what I shoot in just about any situation, making it hard to resist when looking for a "general purpose" lens.
When I first took it out of the box, I was a little surprised at its size. Because of their short back focus, S lenses can be made much smaller than their full-frame EF or L equivalents. I was expecting something closer to the size of the 18-55, but the 17-85 is much larger. Measuring 3.6" long with a diameter of 3.1" the 17-85 is bulkier than the 18-55, but surprisingly light for it’s size, weighing in at 16.1 ounces.
Though I was at first disappointed by the larger size–I was hoping that I would end up with a lens that was lighter than my 24-85–after a few hours of wandering around with the 17-85, I was so satisfied with the 17-85′s features, that the slight weight gain didn’t really matter.
Unlike the 18-55, the 17-85 has a very sturdy build. Though not completely metal, the lens feels solid and robust, and the larger diameter makes for a very comfortable feel in the hand. The 17-85 provides three aspherical elements, the usual assortment of coatings, and a circular aperture for nicer bokeh at large apertures.
The 17-85 provides USM autofocus that is fast and quiet, but the lens also packs a full-time manual focus ring which lets you manually focus without having to switch to manual focus mode. Why provide both? Having manual override when in autofocus mode lets you quickly adjust for times when your camera selects the wrong autofocus point, while a true manual mode lets you manually set focus, without having to worry about the camera’s autofocus overriding it when you half-press the shutter to meter.
Finally, the 17-85 also provides Canon’s latest Image Stabilization technology. When shooting with a long telephoto lens, the advantage of IS is obvious–it’s simply easier to frame your shot when the image is more stable. On a lens with a wide to slightly telephoto range like the 17-85, IS is not so critical for framing, but is incredibly useful for shooting in low light. Canon claims that the stabilizer on the 17-85 provides 3 stops worth of stabilization, and my experience bears this out. If you’re shooting in a low light situation that would normally preclude handheld shooting, the 17-85′s IS might just allow you to get the shot. If your goal is a general purpose, walk-around lens, then the 17-85′s IS adds a tremendous amount of flexibility. With it, you can expand your walking around into much darker conditions without having to lug a tripod.
Canon EOS 20D with Canon 17-85 EF-S, 1/10s at f/5.6. Image Stabilization is activated for the upper image, de-activated for the lower. As you can see, IS allows me to shoot a sharp image, even in this low-light situation.
5 provides a minimum focus distance of 14.4 inches which is, obviously, not as good as the 18-55.
While it fetches a higher price, the 17-85 provides the best mix of features–zoom range, IS, good build quality–of any of the lenses I was considering.
Canon EOS 20D with Canon 17-85 EF-S. JPEG conversion from a camera raw file. No sharpening applied.
Canon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 EF
The only non-S lens that I was considering, the Canon 24-85 provides an effective focal length range of 38mm to 136mm. As I mentioned ealier, 38mm is just not quite wide enough for a general purpose lens. Very often, especially with street shooting, I have found myself needing to switch to a wider lens. In addition to being a hassle, I’ve often missed fleeting moments while scrambling to change lenses.
That said, the 24-85 offers the same telephoto end as the 17-85 in a smaller package. Measuring 2.8" long, with a diameter of 2.7" and a weight of 13 ounces, the 24-85 is significantly smaller than the 17-85, though not significantly lighter. Well-built and solid-feeling, the 24-85 is a comfortable lens to use.
Like the 17-85, the 24-85 provides a full-time manual focus ring, USM autofocus, and separate auto and manual focus modes. Optically, the lens features a single aspherical element, the usual complement of EF coatings and a special "flare cutting" diaphragm that is supposed to aid contrast.
However, the 24-85 has a potentially advantageous optical situation since it’s glass is designed for a full-frame sensor. Because the 20D (and its APS-sensor-size brethren) crops the edges of the 24-85′s field of view, there is theoretically less of a chance of vignetting and distortion than with S lenses that yield "full" coverage for the 20D’s native sensor size.
Canon will argue that its S lenses have their own advantage over full frame lenses. Becuase their optics and coatings are engineered specifically for a smaller sensor size, they are theoretically more capable of surprising flare and ghosting artifacts that are specific to the 20D’s sensor size.
The 24-85 is one stop faster at its telephoto end than either of the S lenses. However, the 17-55′s image stabilization can make up for this in low-light shooting, though it’s no substitute for the potential (though minimal) creative control provided by the extra stop on the 24-85. Still, I don’t find this to be a significant factor.
Finally, the 24-85 clocks in with a street price of about $310, putting it squarely between the other two candidates, in terms of price.
Canon EOS 20D with Canon 24-85 EF. JPEG conversion from a camera raw file. No sharpening applied.
Image quality
You might assume that with a collection of lenses spanning a range from $100-500, you’d see a a lot of different in image quality. The fact is, though, that all three of these lenses are very good, and you have to look fairly deep before you find any differences.
Overall, I did not see a significant difference in general color representation or contrast. All three lenses yielded similar color and contrast. I had more trouble with flaring on the 24-85 than on either of the other two lenses, but these instances were fairly rare and were easily dealt with. None of the lenses had that extra contrasty "gloss" that you get from some L lenses, but I had no complaints about overall quality. I also had no trouble with distortion or vignetting on any of these lenses.
When it comes to sharpness, all three are very close. However, when zoomed in to 100% on an unsharpened raw file, it was possible to see slightly better detail both in the center and at the edges from the 17-85 than from either of the other two. The 18-55 definitely fared the worst, but I think you’d be hard-pressed to see these differences in print.
 |
 |
 |
|
Canon 18-55 EF-S
|
Canon 17-85 EF-S
|
Canon 24-85 EF
|
The Choice
After using the lenses side-by-side, choosing between the three was not difficult. With its superior range and IS, the 17-85 is, for me, the clear winner. While I thought the extra size and weight might be a deal-breaker, the lens is still light enough and small enough that I wouldn’t think of giving up its advantages for a smaller lens. Finally, though the difference isn’t huge, the extra sharpness is a definite plus.
If you have the money, the extra focal length range, and the image stabilization, along with the slight quality advantage, make this lens worth the extra $300-400 over the other two alternatives. For the $600 price tag, you’ll get a sturdy, well-built lens with some excellent features.
But what if I upgrade to full frame?
s release of the full-frame, 13 megapixel, $3000 EOS 5D, a lot of users might be hesitant to invest in an S-mount lens, as they will not be able to migrate this lens to a 5D, should they ever upgrade.
First off, let me state that I would love to have a 5D, and if anyone out there wants to send me one, or sell me one for an irresistable price, I’d be happy to oblige these desires. With that said, I don’t plan on upgrading from my 20D for a few reasons. First of all, I rarely print larger than 13 x 19. Certainly, more resolution is always nice, but other than the occasional zoom and crop, I don’t think I would take tremendous advantage of it right now. Second, about once every two months I end up stuck somewhere shooting a frame or two that absolutely need a fill flash. I do not want to carry an external flash for regular street photography, so the lack of on-board flash on the 5D is a let-down. Third, I don’t have $3000 to spend on a camera.
But possibly the most important consideration for me is lens collection. I have two S lenses now, the 10-22 and the 17-85, in addition to some regular EF mount lenses. I have been extremely pleased with the quality of my S lenses, and I fear that the only equivalent on a full-frame, high res camera will be extremely expensive L lenses that are not only beyond my budget, but that are much larger and heavier than my current S lenses. Bear in mind that that extra resolution in the 5D will demand finer optics.
I’m not as worried about investing in S lenses that don’t migrate to a full frame camera, as I am worried about investing in a full frame camera that requires extremely expensive lenses. For the time being, an APS sensor with S lenses provides an extremely high level of quality, at a price that’s much easier for me to handle.
In a future posting, I hope to compare both the 10-22 and the 17-85 to L equivalents on the 20D. Stay tuned…
Related Links:
Canon 10-22 EF-S Lens
Sigma 14mm f2.8 lens Review
Canon EOS 20D Review
Should you buy a Rebel XT or EOS 20D?
|
|
Comments
9 Comments on Canon 17-85 EF-S vs 18-55 EF-S vs. 24-85 EF
-
Anonymous on
Sun, 9th Oct 2005 10:51 am
-
Anonymous on
Sun, 12th Feb 2006 8:46 pm
-
Complete Digital Photography » Should you upgrade your Canon EOS 20D to an EOS 30D? on
Thu, 30th Mar 2006 1:55 pm
-
Frank on
Sat, 17th Jun 2006 6:07 pm
-
Bob on
Thu, 13th Jul 2006 3:48 pm
-
dennisvillegas on
Mon, 17th Jul 2006 8:42 am
-
Complete Digital Photography » Should you buy a Rebel XTi or Nikon D80? on
Fri, 10th Nov 2006 2:48 pm
-
Joseph on
Mon, 16th Jul 2007 5:44 pm
-
Munira on
Sun, 1st Mar 2009 12:42 pm
Thanks for the great article. I’m wondering if you looked at the Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC. For its astounding range and compactness, you think you’d be sacrificing a lot of sharpness. Well instead you only sacrifice a little sharpness. At the long end it’s not quite as crisp as your test shots above, but I’ve been impressed by this lens with my 20D. And all that for only $250 or so (IIRC).
I’m surprised you didn’t test for focus accuracy. Some of the most frustrating experiences I’ve had with lenses are with front/back focusing issues. The Canon 50mm f/1.8 mkII is a classic example. Everyone raves about this lens for the price, but they are plagued by front-focusing problems. Focus on someon’s eye at f/1.8, and you get blurry eye, sharp nose. I went through two of them and countless hours with the Canon service center before realizing this inherent problem. I gave it away (I couldn’t stand to sell such an albatross) and bought a used Canon 50mm f/1.8 mkI (aka the original which is no longer made) for about the same price and have been much happier with it.
Of course, testing focus accuracy is kind of a pain. You have to set up a test pattern that looks like a ruler at a 45° angle and shoot the middle at the widest aperture (gaining the shortest DOF possible), then observe whether the line on the test pattern that you focused on is actually in focus, or if it focused in front or in back of that point. But taking the time to do this is well worth the peace of mind you gain, IMHO.
Great article – exactly the information on exactly the lenses I was wondering about!
[...] Related Links: Should you buy a Canon EOS 30D or Nikon D200? Canon 17-85 EF-S vs 18-55 EF-s vs. 24-85 EF Canon 10-22 EF-S Review Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT Review [...]
I have spent the last two days deliberating this very point and whether or not I should spend the extra money rather than accept the lens which comes with the kit package. This article provides all the information I needed in one place, Great. Thanks
I also have to add my thanks. I am planning on purchasing a 30D and was wondering if it was worth the extra dollars for the 17-85. Your article helped convince me that it was!
Thanks for the intelligent article. I think people who complain about the 17-85 are those just sour-graping because they could not upgrade from their 18-55 mm. Anyway, your article made me decide to purchase the 17-85 mm a week ago. As of now I have already taken hundreds of pictures , macros, close-ups, portratits, and landscapes, and I’m very happy with the image quality. It is the best all-around lens at a very affordable price than say, the 17-55mm. Thanks, man!
[...] Related Links: Should you buy a Canon EOS 30D or Nikon D200? Canon 17-85 EF-S vs 18-55 EF-s vs. 24-85 EF Canon 10-22 EF-S Review Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT Review [...]
When I tried to order the 17-85 The salesman tired to tell me there was a plastic and metal mount version. Is this true? or just a way to scam more money then they advertised.
Thanks
Joseph
Thank you so much for the wonderful article. I am trying to decide between purchasing the 18-55mm and 17-85mm, and your review’s been extremely helpful. Being a student on a strict budget, I’ve decided to hold out and keep my money for the 17-85mm. Once again, thank you.
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
-
Follow Me
Nothing Else to Buy!
Fifth Edition
Order Now!Complete Digital Photography
by Ben Long.Everything you want and need to know about digital photo-
graphy - from buying a camera, to editing your images, to making your final prints. Completely reorgan-
ized and loaded with more content than any previous edition!
More To Read
Real World
Capture NX2
Order Now!
by Ben Long.
Learn the ins and outs of Nikon's exceptional image editing application. Capture NX 2 provides revolutionary selective editing tools, and a fully non-destructive image editing environment that can be used on any TIFF, JPEG file or Nikon raw file.