"Bill" wrote in message
.. .
"Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" wrote in message
...

And the contenders are (in no specific order):

1. Canon 17-85 IS
2. Canon 17-40 L

I have a Canon 17-40 L and it is sharp as a tack, it is my stay on the
camera lens. I have samples of the 17-85IS and it is nowhere near as
sharp.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

now, now...you're overreacting just a bit, don't you?
It's not like biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig difference as you
say. It is, sure. But not THAT big.

I own the 17-40 L plus I've used the 17-85 IS and it's not an
exaggeration, there is a big difference. You can't use the 17-85 wide
open, and even when stopped down to improve sharpness, it still lacks
contrast and it has nasty CA at the wide end. The 17-85 is a poor
performer for the price. It has the advantage of IS and a wide zoom range
for convenience, but that's it. Optically it's nothing to get excited
about, and the cheap $100 18-55 kit lense is about as good as the 17-85.

For the price, I'd rather spend the money on the 17-40 L that has great
performance - it's one of the best deals available from Canon. Sure it
lacks the range of some others, but what you lose in zoom range you gain
in image quality.

but then again, comparing the two would be unfair, since only one is L

But the comparison here is based on price, and it's somewhat fair because
even with the price drop on the 17-85 they are still in the same range
along with the other three that were mentioned. The 17-40 L can be found
for about $150 more over the 17-85 and it's well the extra money.

with one difference...that 17-85 has IS and 17-40 has not. Note that 17-85
without IS would come ---say about 200 $ tops. The main question is however
how much do you really need IS at that modest zoom. While i found IS at
70-300 IS a must (since i shoot from hand only), here is not that a
nuisance. But bigger minus is short coverage. I've shot a few times with my
17-85 now and it's range usefulness is just great. That barrel distortion is
easily corrected on a PC, and also CA in a great deal. The main point here
is that i have no problem doing this, while someone with hundred's of shots
per day would die before correcting each and everyone photo he/she makes.
Also sharpness can be somewhat gained by, say, unsharp mask. It's a good
thing for what it's ment. But definitely NOT for pro's. I've read several
reviews, from good to bad, and found out that all bad were compared to pro
lenses, while all good were estimated as "very good for the price" so not as
a comparison with pro lens, but rather a relative conclusion. I admit, i did
look at 24-105 lens, but....not just yet. I also looked to new 70-200 IS f4,
but...again not yet---