canon 17-85 IS USM lens user's

KRO

KRO

Suspended / Banned
Messages
623
Name
keith
Edit My Images
No
hi,
just interested in owner's/user's opinion's and thoughts regarding this lens......good or bad.....:thinking:
 
I got mine with my 40d and used it most of the time, the focal range is ideal for a crop body like the 40d

Having IS is a nice bonus, although the lens is not particularly fast it produced some superb shots.

But I always thought it could be sharper - maybe just my copy

When I changed bodies - to a 7D, I noticed it's lack of sharpness even more.

So I sold it and am favouring the 17-55 f2.8 as the best replacement.

But it is definitely an improvement over the other cheaper 'kit' lenses

If you have 7-800 quid knocking around go for the 17-55 f2.8

What lens are you going to be replacing?
 
Not a sharp glass, Big distortion as 17mm, lots of CA, and my Kit lens 18-55mm IS had better IQ.

I do like the range, 17-85mm and the IS, would I spend money on a new one? NO, I would look for alternatives, if you can take bl0at3r suggestion (Canon 17-55 f/2.8) if you can't, considerate the Tamron 17-50m f/2.8 or the new canon 15-85mm

If you put the effort in to it you can get almost resealable results:

img6150mae2.jpg


3761525934_492f9818a6_o.jpg
 
I have the 17-85mm IS USM and although I can't advise you like others here (as I'm just a novice) it appears to be a well built lens, it's pretty heavy.

Optically I don't think it's a great lens, images I've taken do appear to be a little on the soft side, having said this, I've not taken a huge amount of shots with mine so not fully decided yet, it's quite an expensive lens though and I reckon the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM would be a better bet.

Here is a good review for the 17-85mm:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_17-85_4-5p6_is_usm_c16/
 
bl0at3r said:
But I always thought it could be sharper - maybe just my copy
Click to expand...

I've noticed this about mine too.

Mine came with my camera (40d) as I brought it second hand. I like the zoom and IS on it and I do use it a lot but thats probably because I only have this, the nifty fifty and the 55-250 IS so this out of the three is most versatile.

It's only recently I've started thinking that I'd like something which is versatile and much sharper than the 17-85. I am considering a 17-55 IS as the quality of the shots and their sharpness is much better than it is with the 17-85 but it's a lot of money to spend on a lens - although I know they do hold their prices well.

If you want examples of shots taken with the 17-85 you can see plenty on my flickr page :)
 
I have this lens and it's reasonably sharp, but I find I am now using the 28-135mm IS USM lens because of the extra range - and I think it is slightly sharper then the 17-85mm but I don't know if there's a really noticeably difference until you get to the 50D and beyond.

On my 350D and 450D the difference seems minimal.
 
I used a 17-85 for a long time and got some great results. It's a good range and a nice lens to use - well made, not too heavy, IS etc.

Optically it in not the best (I now have a 17-55 2.8 which is fantastic) but if you shoot Raw, running the files through Canon's DPP software can transform them. It has (unqiue?) custom corrections for all Canon lenses, at all focal lengths and f/numbers etc, which it picks up off the Exif data. One click banishes distortion and vignetting, and another click does a pretty good job of eradicating CA.

Have a look at this review, and sample pics of DPP in action on the bottom half of page 3. It's clever stuff :) http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_17-85_4-5p6_is_usm_c16/page3.asp

The new Canon 15-85 looks wonderful, and the extra 2mm on the wide and makes a big difference. Not cheap though.
 
Like most others, mine came along with my 40d - I haven't had any issues with it and have used it a lot as it has a great range.
It'll get replaced through my quest to get better glass rather than it being rubbish, am really starting to need that f2.8 so a 24-70 or similar is on the cards.
 
I never found the sharpness or CA to be too much of an issue but I hated the distortion at the wide end.

On the + side, the IS and USM are very nice and it has a nice range. I replaced mine with a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and although it too produces distortion at the wide end it's nowhere near as bad.
 
its an ok lens, i find as long as you shoot between 24mm- and -75mm and never more than f11

if i had to choose again i would have gone for the tamron 17-50 although the extra range on the 17-85 is nice
 
It lives on my 40D, my favourite lens, good focal range & light weight for a walkabout lens, mine is particularly sharp, IS is good easy handhold down to around 1/6 sec, I preferred it to an L lens I used to own, & prefer the range to my efs10-22, not all copies are the same though :)
 
I've never owned this lens so can't comment on the 17-85mm, but I have owned the 28-135mm IS USM which is a great lens and has decent reach. I paired this with a wide angle 17-35mm so the lack of wide angle wasn't a problem.

I just recently upgraded to the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and although expensive, it is an amazing lens! I can't see myself replacing it as long as i'm on a crop body tbh, and i'm now selling both my 28-135mm and 17-35mm lenses as they just aren't needed now. I've also purchased with it a Sigma 10-20mm for ultra wide landscapes, but 17mm is wide enough for general use imo. I will probably invest in a longer reach lens at some point, like a 70-200mm....but as a walkabout lens, if you have the money, the 17-55mm is the best option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top