17-85 or 18-55? Quality wise?

[gibbon]

Hi, i currently have the 18-55 old type lens that came with a 350d (non is) and am feeling like a newer one, i never really used it although jit had been used and it is quite old now, but im getting more into landscape photography and feel i would like a better lens.

So the search began and i read on an advert (correct if im wrong) that the 17-85mm IS lens came with there canon body (standard lens) so selling it, bit like all the 18-55 lenses.

So im just wondering if the glass of the 17-85 is actually any better than the 18-55 that comes with other bodys? Is it better, or the same quality but with more zoom?

On that note... any recomendations for a lens similer, hard to tell what my budget it is, but there is one... doesnt always mena i stick to it though!!:bonk:

Thanks
Andy

 

[seriousrikk]

The 17-85 is better glas than both 18-55mm lenses.

It depends what you want really. For a similar price you can get a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 which has them both beat by a good margin on image quality.

 

[markmullen]

I upgraded from an 18-55 non IS to a 17-85 and have been very pleased, focussing seems quicker, IQ better and the whole thing seems better put together. I went to Turin earlier in the month and never took the lens off, it was the perfect walkabout and at £180-190 second hand I don't think you can go far wrong.

 

[Donki]

I had the both and have to say I really liked the 17-85mm. Really well built, good IS nice quiet fast USM good range and a decent price second hand, IMO its a solid upgrade on the 18-55mm. I would agree that if you want an increase in IQ you should maybe look at the Tamron 17-50mm with is supposed to be a corker.

Having said all that I have sold it and have just bought a 28-70mm Tamron as the IQ is supposed to be greater and also has a constant aperture of 2.8. I already have a Canon10-22mm to cover the wide end of things.

 

[gibbon]

Thanks for your answers, still .. about it! lol.

Im trying to figure out my needs and usage against cost!

I just feel like the images produced by the standard old non is 18-55 are not good or sharp at all, but dont really want to spend to much on a lens i migh not to use to often??

Why dont canon do similer lenses like the nifty fifty but in the lower focal length region.:thumbsdown:

Is the newer 18-55 IS better than the old non is one?

Thanks
Andy

 

[Donki]

Thanks for your answers, still .. about it! lol.

Im trying to figure out my needs and usage against cost!

I just feel like the images produced by the standard old non is 18-55 are not good or sharp at all, but dont really want to spend to much on a lens i migh not to use to often??

Why dont canon do similer lenses like the nifty fifty but in the lower focal length region.:thumbsdown:

Is the newer 18-55 IS better than the old non is one?

Thanks
Andy

They do, assuming you are talking about primes, you will pay for them.

Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye
Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
Canon EF 24mm f/2.8
Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
Canon EF 28mm f/2.8
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
Canon EF 35mm f/2

I may have missed a few.

The newer 18-55mm has IS but I would say the IQ is pretty mush the same.

 

[gibbon]

Sorry Ian, should have stated i meant as zooms aswell, but i guess thats what makes the 50mm prime good and cheap, being a prime etc.

Right i think i like the sound of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II.

Gets good reviews and looks nice, will have to keep an eye out.
Thanks
Andy