Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

saxk

saxk

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,031
Name
Brad 'Electron-Don' Foster
Edit My Images
Yes
right im going RTW next year, and want to replace my wide angle with a IS and better WA lens, IS is a must as not taking a tripod, id really like to be able to shoot 1 sec exposures w/o a rest/support.

i can do this @ 55mm with my nifty two fifty, so proves to me i need IS even at <18mm


im looking at this for my next lens, anyone had experience with it.

some people say its "just" better than the kit lens (18-55mm)

others say its amazing.

im after a definitive answer lol :bonk: only joking.

is it worth the cash £300, over the IS 18-55mm, about £100.
 
thats not good, looks like the 18-55 and 18-55IS have a bigger gap in IQ
 
well thats comparison makes the 18-55IS look better than the 17-55.
 
Ive heard all good reports with the 18-55IS......(for the price mind you).

That said ive heard quite a lot of reports of faulty 17-55

Dave
 
well i dont need the over lap, so having the 18-55 and the 55-250 both in IS would be perfect, i just thought the 17-85IS would be better.

its alot more money and if its not that much better i wont bother.
 
I used to own 17-85 when I bought my 400D last year.
It was crap and sucked dust like a dyson.

Showed very pronounced barrel distortion at 17mm. Not sharp at 17-35mm. Very slow f4-5.6

I'm actually looking forward to receiveing a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 from amazon tomorrow or the next.

edit:
Forgot to say it also showed very bad CA's.
 
LOL. My wish is that Canon makes a 17-85L but I know it will never happen so I ordered the Tamron.
 
I have one (17-85) as a kit lens with my 40D, image quality is good (but i've never tried an L for comparison), but the 50mm 1.8 i've got totally blows it away for image quality.

it really does suck in dust though, and lens creep is really annoying. hang the camera round your neck and the lens runs out to full zoom immediately :-(
 
Well I am going to go against the grain, this was teh first lens I upgraded too, before going to 17-40. I used it predominantly for landscapes and loved it. For me it was sharp, well constructed and a great lens. Let me know if you wnat to see some shots and I'll post them up.
As a mid-step, before a 17-40 or 16-35 for a Landscape lens, I loved it.
 
cheers chewy, id love to see some shots, let yourself go :D

what other options do i have for an IS lens that will reach a min of 18mm wide.

im really not clued up on lenses, but i know after getting my 55-250 that IS is a necessity for travelling.
 
A few more considered opinions (including mine)

HERE

HTH

David
 
Here's a couple of oldies .... well 2 years anyhow :)

294089733_49a76811b9.jpg


1169477203_5cfffe11f6.jpg


The lens is not faultless by any stretch, hell neither is the 17-40L, which is why I am looking at the 16-35 2.8. As a next step I think it works well.
 
saxk said:
i have a 55-250 so this lens has a little to much over lap :D
Click to expand...

The best EFS lens then.

Or why not get the 18-200 and sell your 55-250. It will save you from carrying 2 lenses, saves you swapping lenses too. And in the long run, saves you sensor cleaning cost.
 
chewyuk said:
Well I am going to go against the grain, this was teh first lens I upgraded too, before going to 17-40. I used it predominantly for landscapes and loved it. For me it was sharp, well constructed and a great lens. Let me know if you wnat to see some shots and I'll post them up.
As a mid-step, before a 17-40 or 16-35 for a Landscape lens, I loved it.
Click to expand...

:agree: For a walkabout lens its excellent without spending mega ££££'s

Steve
 
im more than happy with my 55-250 and rally dont want to sell, i dont want one lnes, i want to take two.

i jsut keep going over reviews and samples of the 18-55 vs the 17-85 and the 18 keeps coming out on top.

but it jsut doenst look as well built, and hardly looks, aestheticly , like an upgrade
 
I have the 17-85 on my aging 20D. It does give distortion at 17mm. But unless you have a long horizon in the picture you may not find it objectionable. The 18-55 is a better lens if you don't need the extra reach of the 85.

At the end of the day are you buying the the lens for it's looks or for it's performance. Personally I'd go for performance.

Having said all that even having been superseded by a 5D the 20D still comes out on occasions with the 17-85 and performs well.
 
chappers, its not jsut looks its build quality, it has a metal mount etc, but understand and agree.



now im digging deep im not finding any good praise of this lens in general.
 
When I bought my 30D 28 months ago it was bundled with the 17-85. I was happy using that lens as my only lens for a year before splashing out on a serious spending spree. I did buy a nifty for low light use during that year but just found it to be so horrible to use that it stayed in the bag. When I did upgrade it was for a 10-22, 17-55, 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 100-400.

I agree with comments about significant barrel distortion at the wide end, which can be corrected in software, but I rarely suffered a problem with distortion that ruined a picture. People also complain about chromatic aberration, which again I've never had a problem with. From what I hear/read the new(ish) 18-55 IS does have superior IQ but my 17-85 served me well.

The real downside with a lens like this is (a) the aperture is not very fast, for low light shooting such as weddings; (b) the variable max aperture as you zoom in just a monumental PITA if you want to shoot (near) wide open with manual exposure, because each time you zoom the aperture changes. That's why I got the 17-55. The other lenses were just gravy :) As of this week I've just added a further three lenses - all fast primes - to my collection, once again driven by the needs of (winter) wedding work.

For an all round travel lens, with decent light I think the 17-85 is still a good choice. The range is good, the IS is good, the fast, accurate, quiet USM focusing is good. At the long end the IQ is good too. The wide end is the weak point but it's still not bad. I've sold pictures taken with my 30D and 17-85 within two weeks of getting the camera (my first DSLR). I even managed to shoot an entire wedding with this one lens. It clearly can't be that terrible.

Reviews....

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon1785EFS/
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/179-canon-ef-s-17-85mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef-s_17-85_review.html
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/136/cat/11 (several end user reviews)

I have been hanging onto mine as a backup in case the 17-55 went tits up during a job, but have not had to use it since getting the 17-55.
 
im not so worried about the distortion as that can be correct, and alot of pictures im going to be taking are not going to show it up etc.

the CA on comparison charts seem bad, compared to the 18-55.

i cant stop going back to the review where it shoes the iso chart, compare 18-55 and the 17-85, the 18 looks better in every Fstop and every FL.

also its alot cheaper, ALOT!

i think mabe ill get the 18-55IS and then see what i can pick up in HK nest year when im there.

as much as i want the bigger lens (17-85) for its built and weight, i am going RTW so having a lighter lens and a smaller lens is really the best idea.
 
from photozone


So at the end of the day the lens is a tad better than the cheapo EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 but it can't really compete with the new EF-S 18-55m f/3.5-5.6 IS
Click to expand...
 
is it pathetic that this is really doing my head in.

how can canon build a far superior build of lens with usm, metal mount, is etc etc, only to let it down with bad IQ.

i really dont fancy the 18-55IS as it really doesn't seem like an upgrade, its the same looking lens, same size and crappy build.

do i make sense lol ?
 
Why do you say the IQ is *so* bad. Here's a sharpness test I shot with my 17-85 back to back with my 17-55 a while ago....

http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTiger/1755And1785SharpnessTest?authkey=Gey3mqzbLyQ#

It's a little softer at the wide end but does pretty well against the more expensive lens in the mid and long ranges. I think you will find that the barrel distortion at the widest setting is hardly onerous. It is a pretty good all round lens. The worst thing about it is that it is only f/4 to f/5.6, which makes manual exposure a PITA if you want to shoot and zoom at apertures faster than f/5.6. But that's no worse than any other variable max aperture zoom.

As for CA, here is a 100% crop from a demanding shot, as far as CA is concerned, and this is at the notorious 17mm end - do you see any CA?

20061002_110224_DPP.JPG


I can't embed the image but here's a link to another 100% crop, again with potentially challenging branches/twigs/hair to create CA....

http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTiger/POTN?authkey=YwMQelbhTZY#5213885629810728770

and here's the full image from which that crop came

2865301512_eb64278bec_o.jpg


It is a good lens - well, mine is, at least. :)
 
thanks dodd, its nice to see some real life experience.

i think ill wait to see if i can get a good deal on a new 17-85mm, the best i can find somewhere is £235, which, i believe, will be the best anywhere.
 
Have to admit that i prefer the misses 17-70 sigma over my 17-85 canon, however, its not a bad lens. CA is quite bad though, but nothing that a little lightroom work cant sort out. The changing aperture is annoying though, butthe IS is a really big help. Why not rent one perhaps? Or rent the 17-55 f2.8IS?
 
Sorry to hijack the thread, but Im also really interested in this topic. I currently own a 40D with the 18-55 kit lens and Im looking to upgrade. I was pretty much set on the 17-85mm IS USM... until I saw this thread. Now it seems that the 18-55mm IS is the way to go. From what I have read, the major problems with the 17-85mm lens is 'bad iq' and 'bad ca'. Can someone please let me know what that is supposed to mean (noob here). Also, for an absolute novice who is looking to find something better than his current lens, would you guys recommend the 17-85 or 18-55?

Thanks.
 
I've got both the 17-85 f4-5.6 IS EFS and the 17-55 f2.8 IS EFS.

As Chewey says you can get very good images with the 17-85. At 50mm @f8 its pretty damn good. However at 85mm it suffers quite badly from distortions and aberrations as well as losing quite a bit of sharpness.

I got the 17-85 as an upgrade from the 17-55 kit lens. I noticed a definite improvement over the kit lens.
In fact I used it for at least a year alongside my 75-300 lens.
Then I made the "mistake" :D of buying a 70-200L and then did the comparison thing between the 85mm end of both lenses. After I'd collected my jaw from the carpet I saved up and bought the 17-55 f2.8 IS EFS. The reviews arnt wrong this is a splendid bit of glass (I think it deserves a red band and an L).

The 17-85 lives on my older 20D now.

In summary, there are a lot of very good reasons why the 17-55 f2.8 IS EFS is twice the price of the 17-85 f4-5.6 IS EFS.
However if you want the "next" step from the kit lens then this is definitely worth considering. If you are going to then go into L glass as I did it'll probably become an ebay item or a paperweight.

HTH
 
FunkyMunky said:
From what I have read, the major problems with the 17-85mm lens is 'bad iq' and 'bad ca'. Can someone please let me know what that is supposed to mean (noob here).
Thanks.
Click to expand...


IQ : Image Quality -> Means how sharp and vivid the image is. Low IQ =blurry indistinct. High IQ = crisp and sharp.

CA : Chromatic aberrations -> Generally occurs at the edges of the lens where the curvature of the glass is greatest and in some (cheaper) less well controlled. What happens is that the light passing through the lens ends up getting split (bit like a prism) and either the blue or red end shifts a little. To which end you get purple/red fringes around dark objects.
 
I have the 17-85 lens, & it would be the very last lens I would let go of, & that includes my 70-200 2.8L IS, which I'm shortly to offer for sale here, I think it shows the quality control & standards at Canon are very wide, you can get good & poor copies of any lens. :|
 
strobemonkey said:
I used to own 17-85 when I bought my 400D last year.
It was crap and sucked dust like a dyson.
Click to expand...

Ennit blud! (sucks teef) dam right.

I had one as kit with a 30D and after a short while using it in various circumstances, I came to the conclusion that it wasn't for me.
There are many better lenses out there, Sigma for one if budget is tight but QC can be bad so check any Sigma purchases out thoroughly upon receipt.

Personally I'd hang on to your dough and save for a standard L zoom, whether it's a 17-40L f/4, 24-105 F/4L or the mighty 24-70 f/2.8L
Check out the second hand deals from various shops.
Yes they can be expensive, but IMO when you buy an L series like the ones above, you tend to stop looking/spending for a better alternative, the L series lenses are hard to top for IQ and build.
T
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top