Why choose 17-85mm over 24-105mm?

I'm confused as to why some one would choose a 17-85mm over 24-105mm?
Seems as though the 24-105mm offers the best range. However, it is
more expensive. What if there was a 17-105mm of high quality? Would
that be the best choice?

Then consider the Canon EF 28-90 mm f/4-5.6 II USM Zoom Lens for only
$129. That seems to be the best of the two mentioned below.

Canon 17-85 mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Zoom Lens for $589

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Zoom Lens for $1249

I understand some will have motors and that will cause the price to
increase. However, if you have two lenses that the only differences
are one is a 17-85mm and the other a 24mm-105mm, why choose one over
the other?

On the subject of lenses and focal length, my landscape photos often do
not match at all what I see. For example, let's say I take a photo of
a mountain face or downtown skyline. I'm very close to the subject and
can see rich detail. However, in the photo, the subject seems far
away, small and lacking of detail. There is no 3D to the photo. For
example, there is much details in these photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aijuswanaseing/45136076/ (lens unknown)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43102073@N00/68323928/ (17-40mm)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43102073@N00/68323929/ (17-40mm)

On the first photo, I'm only referring to the tower details. Those
photos make you feel as though you are standing right there. I can
frame everything exactly the same on my camera but never get that type
of perspective. I'd some suggestions as to why that may be. I have
some ideas below.

The 20D is my target camera and I keep posting questions relating to
its abilities. Here's another. My Olympus c2100z has a 38-380 mm
f2.8-3.5/8.0 lens. I'd imagine it isn't of very good quality being
built in (non interchangable). Could this camera/lens be the reason I
get such lacking photos? Will the 20D be any better? For the above
photos, which lens would work best?

Why did the photographer choose a 17-40mm lens for the above photos?
Why not a 17-80mm or 38-380mm?

With a high quality 38-380mm lens, why would some one spend more money
to buy a 38-105mm and 105mm - 380mm (assuming both exist)? It seems
the one lens does everything you need in one package. Or is that
illogical thinking?

Thanks,
Brett

The reason for the 17mm wide end of a zoom is that with the size of the
sensor in the 20D a 17mm lens gives about the same field of view as a 28mm
lens on a 35mm camera, which is reasonably good wide angle coverage for
common uses. The wide Canon digital zooms have distortion problems but these
would not bother most amateur users.
I would presume that the reason you are dissatisfied with the images you now
obtain with your camera has less to do with the camera than your digital
photographic skills. Since the Olympus has very good auto everything it is
not focusing or exposure that would likely be the problems.
If the problems are related to the technical limits of the camera you should
be able to better articulate what those limits are before spending alot of
money chasing a gear related fix.
Essentially all photos benefit from processing the image prior to printing.
Digital processes allow the individual users to make adjustments to images
that previously were only available to professionals with skilled darkroom
technicians. In fact image adjustments can easily and routinely be made that
could never be duplicated by any wet process.
However you have to learn to use a program like Elements/Photoshop and learn
to use color managed printing. The total cost of a good printer (reasonably
good photoprinters can be had for $200), imaging program (Elements can be
purchansed under many circumstances for less than $70) and a monitor
calibrating device ($100) is far less than the cost of a 20d or the lenses
you describe.
Mastering the image processing aspect of digital imaging will improve your
images and photographic skills far, far more than ponying up the dollars,
euros or pounds for a 20d and expensive lenses. In the meantime you appear
to need to read a bit more about the basic aspects of interchangeable lens
photography in general, regardless of whether it is digital or film based.

"brett" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm confused as to why some one would choose a 17-85mm over 24-105mm?
Seems as though the 24-105mm offers the best range. However, it is
more expensive. What if there was a 17-105mm of high quality? Would
that be the best choice?
Because 24-105 does not offer as much range in the wide angle region, it is
not nearly as useful to me. It is however harder to design a wide angle
lens that reaches 17 mm as opposed to one that only has reach 24 mm. 24mm
is not that far removed from a normal lens.
Now, if I had deep pockets, I would prefer a high quality 17-105 lens over
either of the other two. Everybody has a budget; mine won't cover such a
lens.
Jim

If you want the 17mm end but also want something that is 90-100mm, then
are you stuck with two lenses? Why would some one want 90-100mm rather
than just go with the 17-85mm? Would the 5mm between 85 and 90 make
that much difference?

Thanks,
Brett

brett wrote:
I'm confused as to why some one would choose a 17-85mm over 24-105mm?
Seems as though the 24-105mm offers the best range.

Best for what? I love wide angle. It is great for a lot of uses,
especially people inside landscapes, buildings etc. You might find it
worthless. Do you ever find yourself telling people to move around so you
can get them all in the same photo? If so you want wider angle.

However, it is
more expensive.

It is that "L" in the name that makes it more expensive. The "L" series
is really their professional line and in general they are truly better
quality lenses. It may also be harder to make a good quality wide angle
than a good quality less wide angle.

What if there was a 17-105mm of high quality? Would
that be the best choice?

Then consider the Canon EF 28-90 mm f/4-5.6 II USM Zoom Lens for only
$129. That seems to be the best of the two mentioned below.

Canon 17-85 mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Zoom Lens for $589

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Zoom Lens for $1249

I understand some will have motors and that will cause the price to
increase. However, if you have two lenses that the only differences
are one is a 17-85mm and the other a 24mm-105mm, why choose one over
the other?

On the subject of lenses and focal length, my landscape photos often
do not match at all what I see. For example, let's say I take a
photo of a mountain face or downtown skyline. I'm very close to the
subject and can see rich detail. However, in the photo, the subject
seems far away, small and lacking of detail. There is no 3D to the
photo.

Well I find that the use of a wide angle lens tends to add the
appearance of depth, but that is only one part. Composition is really an
art form and you can not just tell someone how to accomplish it. It comes
with a lots of practice, observation training, skill and talent. Sorry to
say, I come up short on the last item.

Detail is a matter of sharpness, but in real life, the apparent detail
is more a matter of composition, exposure lighting etc. Back to that old
problem, photography is an art form.

You can't expect equipment to make art. The photographer makes art.
Study what you like and figure out why you like it. Then go and practice
often.

For example, there is much details in these photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aijuswanaseing/45136076/ (lens unknown)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43102073@N00/68323928/ (17-40mm)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43102073@N00/68323929/ (17-40mm)

On the first photo, I'm only referring to the tower details. Those
photos make you feel as though you are standing right there. I can
frame everything exactly the same on my camera but never get that type
of perspective. I'd some suggestions as to why that may be. I have
some ideas below.

The 20D is my target camera and I keep posting questions relating to
its abilities. Here's another. My Olympus c2100z has a 38-380 mm
f2.8-3.5/8.0 lens. I'd imagine it isn't of very good quality being
built in (non interchangable). Could this camera/lens be the reason I
get such lacking photos? Will the 20D be any better? For the above
photos, which lens would work best?

Why did the photographer choose a 17-40mm lens for the above photos?
Why not a 17-80mm or 38-380mm?

With out knowing where he had the zoom set, I can only suggest he might
have been able to use any of those lenses. He also may know that one lens
has a little more contrast than another. We are back to the art issue
again. He is using his tools to create art, it is not the tool that creates
it.


With a high quality 38-380mm lens, why would some one spend more money
to buy a 38-105mm and 105mm - 380mm (assuming both exist)? It seems
the one lens does everything you need in one package. Or is that
illogical thinking?

The lens may be heavier than desired, it may look too imposing to the
subjects, it may have a smaller aperture, or it may not be as sharp or it
may be more contrasty than desired. There is a lot more to a lens than just
the zoom range. In fact some of the best lenses ever made are not even
zooms.

My suggestion is to join a local camera club. Work with the people
there to get input on your work. Do lots of photography. Work towards the
results you want. Try to lean to use the tools you have, whatever they
maybe.

I suspect that any of the great photographers of the world could produce
far better results with a cheap box camera, than I could with the best
equipment money can buy.

Think talent and skill first and equipment last.



Thanks,
Brett

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

"brett" writes:

I'm confused as to why some one would choose a 17-85mm over 24-105mm?

24mm isn't a very wide wide end when used on a 1.6x camera. 17mm is
much more tolerable.

[snip]

Why did the photographer choose a 17-40mm lens for the above photos?
Why not a 17-80mm or 38-380mm?

Because Canon makes an L-series 17-40mm which is (relatively) cheap.
Nobody makes a 17-80mm yet that I know of, or a 38-380mm (and no 10:1
zoom yet made for 35mm is any good).

With a high quality 38-380mm lens, why would some one spend more money
to buy a 38-105mm and 105mm - 380mm (assuming both exist)? It seems
the one lens does everything you need in one package. Or is that
illogical thinking?

Nobody has ever made a high quality 38-380mm lens, or any other 10:1
zoom, for 35mm. I have worked with a good 10:1 zoom for 16mm motion
picture work, though; it was a Zeiss 10-100mm f1.8 lens, and I was
told it was worth $25,000 (used). This may be another part of the
reason why 35mm photographers don't look for 10:1 zooms.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"brett" wrote in message
ups.com...
If you want the 17mm end but also want something that is 90-100mm, then
are you stuck with two lenses? Why would some one want 90-100mm rather
than just go with the 17-85mm? Would the 5mm between 85 and 90 make
that much difference?

Thanks,
Brett

The difference between 85 and 90 is very slight. However, if you need to
make shots at 90-100 mm and shots at 17 mm, you are stuck with either a very
expensive single lens or two lenses. I don't have this problem because I
own an arsenal of telephoto lenses which serve my purposes quite well. It
is not necessary to cover the entire spectrum of possible focal lengths
anyway.
Jim

Are the non zoom lenses always better than fixed? Meaning, the Canon
10-22 wide angle is better than it equivalent in a zoom? BTW, I know
there is only one 10-22. Just using it as an example.

Brett

"brett" wrote in message
oups.com...
Are the non zoom lenses always better than fixed? Meaning, the Canon
10-22 wide angle is better than it equivalent in a zoom? BTW, I know
there is only one 10-22. Just using it as an example.

Brett

The 10-22 is a zoom, which means multiple focal lengths in one lens. And,
as a general rule, a fixed focal length lens (one focal length, one lens)
is, overall better optically than a zoom lens that include the same focal
length. The problem with your example is that most, if not all, fixed focal
length lenses that are wider than 14mm are fisheye (distorted) lenses, as
are a couple of 15mm lenses that I know of.
In answer to your original question, the reason someone would choose a 17-85
over a 24-105 is need. If you need a wide angle lens, say, because you are
using a Canon Rebel XT or 20D, the 17-85 is a better choice. The 24-105 is
an excellent lens, but best suited to cameras like the 5D and 1Ds mkII,
cameras with sensors that are the same size as a 35mm film frame, instead of
cropped. The 17-85, as a matter of fact, won't even fit on those latter
cameras.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

In article .com,
says...

I'm confused as to why some one would choose a 17-85mm over 24-105mm?
Seems as though the 24-105mm offers the best range. However, it is
more expensive. What if there was a 17-105mm of high quality? Would
that be the best choice?

[SNIP] as others have already commented on the "wider" aspect of the 17mm v
24mm

On the subject of lenses and focal length, my landscape photos often do
not match at all what I see. For example, let's say I take a photo of
a mountain face or downtown skyline. I'm very close to the subject and
can see rich detail. However, in the photo, the subject seems far
away, small and lacking of detail. There is no 3D to the photo. For
example, there is much details in these photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aijuswanaseing/45136076/ (lens unknown)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43102073@N00/68323928/ (17-40mm)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43102073@N00/68323929/ (17-40mm)

On the first photo, I'm only referring to the tower details. Those
photos make you feel as though you are standing right there. I can
frame everything exactly the same on my camera but never get that type
of perspective. I'd some suggestions as to why that may be. I have
some ideas below.

As for landscape shots, one of the most effective ways to capture the "depth"
or illusion thereof, is to include foreground objects, say a rock outcrop, or
bushes. While one can process the image to add the illusion of more depth,
having a foreground, middleground, and background will go a long way towards
making your shots appear 3-D.

Hunt