17-85mm is v 50mm 1.8

pstewy

pstewy

Messages
308
Edit My Images
Yes
A 17-85mm is has come up for sale near me at a good price or a 50mm off kelso, just wondered your thoughts, get my first prime or get a general all round lens. while I save up for my two dream lens.
Thanks Paul
 
I found my 50mm very restrictive and therefore always used my 17-50. Coincidently the 50mm got sold due to lack of use.
 
The 50mm will go with you if you ever go full-frame. It will also make you consider your compositions more as you won't have the benfit of a zoom. It's also a lot faster than the 18-85 and will give you far more options in low light. It's also a great portrait lens with nice bokeh. It's also the one I would recommend. :)
 
depends what you think you'll need most - for low-light work the 50mm will outdo a zoom most of the time.

if low-light performance is not so important, then the extra flexibility of the zoom is probably more useful
 
pstewy said:
A 17-85mm is has come up for sale near me at a good price or a 50mm off kelso, just wondered your thoughts, get my first prime or get a general all round lens. while I save up for my two dream lens.
Thanks Paul
Click to expand...

I have both these lenses on a 40d.

To be honest I don't use the 50 1.8 that much. Obviously it's a cost effective way of getting shallow dof and will perform in low light. Focus can hunt a bit so it's not great for moving objects but well worth the low price.

17-85 tends to get very mixed views. Some people seem to love it whilst others don't. I got mine with the camera and whilst I always planned to upgrade it I still have it I've always found mine to be good. Wide open it's a bit soft around the edges but nothing to worry about. Build wise it's solid - the IS is good and the 17-85 is a very handy range.

I guess it really depends what you're wanting to do.
 
Well what lenses do you already have and why? What lenses do you want in the future and why? Bit more info on what you shoot/use them for would also help. If you just have a kit lens, then I would suggest a 50mm prime to get used to shooting with shallow DOF and low light use. I don't think you will regret it. It would open you up to a lot mor ein photography than adding the 17-85. yes the 50mm is restrictive as a walk about lens, but it does make you compose subjects better and think a lot more, but it's dead light, dead compact, dead cheap and dead sharp.
 
Out of the two, the 17-85mm will be much more useful. The 50mm should be used in "addition" to a walkabout zoom and not a substitute. The 50mm has it's uses but I found it overrated. Conversely, the 17-85mm is underrated and gets more stick than it deserves. Ony at the very wide end is there anything to complain about with the 17-85mm.
 
wow thanks for all the replys I only have a 18-55 kit lens and a 70-300 both non is, I seem to have a problem with camera shake so IS seemed the way to go, I'm into portraits at the minute but want to try all aspects of photography.
Want to obtain a 24-105 and 100-400, in the future these two seem to fit in with what I'm doing and will give me a good range.
Can't rule anything out as in shooting wise low light etc as I'm shooting anything at the minute.
paul
 
If you have a problem with camera shake the 50mm will allow you to keep your shutter speed up in most lighting situations - the 17-85 won't. Having IS will be good for shooting things that don't move but if you're shooting people then a faster lens will be more beneficial. (IS can't stop people moving)
 
Hmmm nice mixed bag of comments, think I'll go and have a look at the 17-85 take a few pics with it, then see if I can get father xmas to bring me a 50mm at christmas.
Thanks for the replys.
 
the zoom for me ..never know whats round the next corner
:)
 
If you want a 24-105L, then just keep saving. Anything else you buy now will never be what you really want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top