EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM... opinions?
- Thread starter Weggy
- Start date
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yep. It was the first lens I bought with my 20D body. It's an absolutely cracking lens with a realy useful 'walk around' zoom range. The 'macro' setting is useful for pretty good close-ups too.
The only reason I sold it was that I was upgrading to the 1D which of course it doesn't fit, and I forked out for the 17-40L. Before I parted with the 17-85, I did some comparison test shots with the 17-40L. The colour saturation is better on the L glass as you'd expect and the L was sharper, but we're not talking night and day.
The biggest difference was barrel distortion. Both lenses displayed it in extreme close up, but it was more marked on the 17-85. This was a pretty extreme test though photographing a brick wall from very close up, and wouldn't be a problem with either lens in most situations.
I'd have no hesitation in recommending the lens with the proviso that you need to be sure you wont upgrade to a 1 Series body in the future.
If you can stretch to the 17-40L you lose a bit on focal length, but gain one of the more affordable bits of L glass and it really is a cracker. It's also weatherproof for when you buy the 1 series .
The only reason I sold it was that I was upgrading to the 1D which of course it doesn't fit, and I forked out for the 17-40L. Before I parted with the 17-85, I did some comparison test shots with the 17-40L. The colour saturation is better on the L glass as you'd expect and the L was sharper, but we're not talking night and day.
The biggest difference was barrel distortion. Both lenses displayed it in extreme close up, but it was more marked on the 17-85. This was a pretty extreme test though photographing a brick wall from very close up, and wouldn't be a problem with either lens in most situations.
I'd have no hesitation in recommending the lens with the proviso that you need to be sure you wont upgrade to a 1 Series body in the future.
If you can stretch to the 17-40L you lose a bit on focal length, but gain one of the more affordable bits of L glass and it really is a cracker. It's also weatherproof for when you buy the 1 series .
Thanks CT, a great deal of info there!
I can't see me upgrading to a 1 series body, but then I didn't expect to be buying any L series lenses a few months after buying a dSLR... and I already have the 100-400!
I'll see what price Mr Kerso can do and then go from there I guess...
I can't see me upgrading to a 1 series body, but then I didn't expect to be buying any L series lenses a few months after buying a dSLR... and I already have the 100-400!
I'll see what price Mr Kerso can do and then go from there I guess...
photostar_1
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,802
- Name
- Carole
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I bought the 17-85 with the camera body, instead of the kit lens and have been very happy with it. I use it less now that I have the 24-70mmL however.
chewyuk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,025
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Due to budget constraints that I have, I use this a my major lens. It is never off my camera and I really get on well with it.
Barrel distortion is evident, but only at the extreme.
I have no real complaints and have produced what I would consider some nice shots. In fact most of the shots you will see from me on the forum are taken with it.
Much like CT I have been looking at the 17-40, as I do mostly landscape. But in my books the 17-85 comes highly recommended.
It not too heavy and gives a reasonable range. Cheers, Neil
Barrel distortion is evident, but only at the extreme.
I have no real complaints and have produced what I would consider some nice shots. In fact most of the shots you will see from me on the forum are taken with it.
Much like CT I have been looking at the 17-40, as I do mostly landscape. But in my books the 17-85 comes highly recommended.
It not too heavy and gives a reasonable range. Cheers, Neil
oldgit
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,346
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ive still got one. Its in a box on my desk, waiting to get sent somwhere to get fixed.. the manual focus ring doesnt. Works perfecly well otherwise.
Its not bad as an everyday walkaround lens.
I've replaced it with the 17-55f2.8 which since buying the 70-200f2.8 I use about as much as the 17-85. More a factor or what and how I choose to shoot not the lens.
That said I never really got on with the results. The 17-55 is soooo much sharper over all f ranges. Also the new lens exhibits much less distortion and has better colour rendition.
You get what you pay for :shrug:
Its not bad as an everyday walkaround lens.
I've replaced it with the 17-55f2.8 which since buying the 70-200f2.8 I use about as much as the 17-85. More a factor or what and how I choose to shoot not the lens.
That said I never really got on with the results. The 17-55 is soooo much sharper over all f ranges. Also the new lens exhibits much less distortion and has better colour rendition.
You get what you pay for :shrug:
AquilaEagle
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 420
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have the 17-85, had it since I started with my old 350D. It's great walkaround lens, and I use it the most.
I am thinking about going to 24-70mm L - Can anyone draw a comparison between these 2, and is it worth upgrading?
I am thinking about going to 24-70mm L - Can anyone draw a comparison between these 2, and is it worth upgrading?