Amadeus Loc: New York

Would like an opinion on this lens. I try to acquire the best lenses I can afford and don’t own any “L” series lenses. I have an 18-135 but would like to own an L lens. I can get the 17-40 for about $400 used from KEH. Will I see a significant improvement over the 18-135? I have an 80D.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The focal lengths are so different, these two lenses are not a valid comparison.

At $400, the 17-40 is an excellent value. I moved from that lens and many years of great images to the superior and IS-enabled 16-35 f/4L IS. Another lens that fits in this discussion and the similar focal length range is the EF-S 10-22. I overlapped the 17-40 and 10-22 for a period of time. There's no difference between the two other than the mount and that one has a red ring.

For a 'big' difference to the 18-135, either the 10-22 or 17-40 will be different where 'big' is unlikely. To me, the bigger difference would be giving up a lot of versatility of longer focal length and the loss of IS support.

Rather than focusing on red rings, tell us what you want to accomplish with a new lens. The Canon catalog is huge and many of their excellent lenses don't have red rings and the associated cost. Your 18-135 is one of the most versatile lenses and getting "better images" within this focal length range will be a challenge, where a prime is a better option than another zoom for a qualitative difference. Being able to shoot in lower light is another consideration. If you can analyze the focal lengths of your images, look at the low-light challenges and the focal lengths involved. These might be clues to which lens solutions to investigate further.

Amadeus Loc: New York

I wanted to get into the “normal” 50mm range. I do have a 50mm 1.4 but on my 80D it’s more like a medium telephoto. So the purpose of considering the 17-40 was for that 50mm range. And the fact that it’s an “L” lens piqued my interest.

User ID

No.

I use one ... when I must.

“L” lenses aren’t really known for visibly superior images. They are good optics, well built, with constant aperture zooms ... but none of that is gonna hit you between the eyes.

$400 for a big heavy middle-wide to longish normal used lens ? That $$ buys a brand new 10-22 which is a top shelf lens in every way. I use it much more than the 17-40.

But you asked about significantly improved results. For results you can actually SEE get the 10-18. You’ll get waaaaaay better results from that than either the 17-40 or 10-22. (Yes, I use all three.)

Ignoring your apparent dislike of your 50/1.4 (cannot accommodate personal taste there ... you are simply wrong) just make friends with the 50 and add one of the 10-XX zooms. Keep the 18-135 for your long lens.

If you want the envy of your peers, do not let them see or handle the 10-18. Show them only the results. KEH has them for just over $200. Just order it.

$200 and you’re all done. No further $$ should be spent on SLR lenses. If you think you have a gap or a hole in your lens set, just ignore it. And don’t ask this group about it, or they will be all too happy to help you plug the hole (real or imagined.) Only $200 ... get on it !

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

On a cropped body, the 17-40 range is a great walkaround zoom. As mentioned earlier, it's less versatile than the wider focal length 18-135 along with the loss of IS-support.

To achieve an effective 50mm perspective on the EOS 80D, consider the EF 35mm f/2 IS or the EF 40 f/2.8. The 'pancake' 40 is like carrying just the camera body being so lightweight and small in size. There's also the EF 28mm f/2.8 IS. The original EF 35 f/1.4L is the 'king' of this group, but even used, this lens is more than twice the cost of the 17-40L.

Without the IS, the 17-40L is relatively lightweight. It's a great lens and maybe the best choice of the options mentioned above. You can work with it artistically at f/4, but it's best sharpness is between f/8 and f/11, that is rather defeating as a low-light lens, where the primes above might be better choices for absolute image quality at wide apertures.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Thank you for the reminder of the EFS 10-18 that includes the added advantage of IS to a sharper lens too.

User ID

Reading your whole post and disagreeing with only about half of it ... one more lens comes to mind for a fast normal (APSC). The Tamron 35/1.8. I use its twin, the 45/1.8. And that reminds me about the Canon EF 35/2.0. Neither is cheap, but a normal FL prime with IS is a rare bird, and here you have a choice of two ! The 28 IS was a good suggestion. Recently got the 24 IS. Not cheap for an f/2.8 but so far no regrets !

I have the 45 on both Nikon and Canon. Where else can you find a prime normal with IS for FF ?!?!?

Amadeus Loc: New York

I appreciate all the comments and suggestions. KEH has the 35 f2 that appears to be prior 2012 without IS. It’s over $100 cheaper than the newer IS version. Is it worth the extra $ for the IS?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

It's up to you. I have plenty of non IS lenses. But, I have more confidence of being prepared for more situations with an IS-enabled lens. It comes down to your intended usage and confidence / skills, and I guess how much you want to spend. You can extrapolate from your experiences with the 50 f/1.4 to forecast how important IS is to your needs.

Amadeus Loc: New York

You know the more I ponder this, the more I’m thinking, I’m over thinking. I like what I get out of my 18-135. And if there isn’t a marked improvement in getting a shorter zoom or one of the fixed lenses mentioned then it’s just a GAS issue. But I’m glad I asked. And appreciate all the input.

User ID

A bargain at twice the price. If I could add IS to various old primes for $100 each, I’d be at least $1000 poorer but $5000 happier. Thaz 5:1 leverage :-)

Latest happy: I’ve got an old 24/2.8 EF that I use only on IBIS Sony bodies. I just paid $425 for a used IS version of the *same lens* cuz I acquired a hi rez Canon SLR that demands a verrrrry steady hand when a tripod isn’t practical. Read that carefully. I just paid $425 to basically “add IS to an old prime”. $100 is a bargain. Don’t cheap out.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Your first of two kids from Jones Beach are wonderful! I just went looking for an examples of your 18-135 results, where this image is the 70-300. I didn't find anything for the 18-135 in just browsing different posts. A friend with an EOS 80D gets excellent results with his 18-135. We've worked a few events together where I freely mix his images with mine. If you work at selective focus and sharp focus and good exposure, the 18-135 lens and 80D camera are a great combination and mostly indistinguishable from L-lenses on a full frame, especially if you can use a flash and keep your ISO low.

What different focal lengths, and especially primes, accomplish is change your approach to photography. If the 18-135 seems boring, that could be a reason to add a different lens. But, it's really hard and even more expense to find a lens that gives 'better' images than this lens.

Amadeus Loc: New York

Thank you for the comment on the Jones Beach kids CHG. I am attaching 2 pics that were taken with the 18-135.
Just sending them because you showed an interest. Again, I appreciate everyone's input.

(Download)


(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I don't see anything about this lens holding you back. At 24mm, the young woman in the pool couldn't be better with another lens.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

We have this lens and it is very nice, glad we have it.