Just brought the 17-85 Again...

[jimmyleaman]

Hi all,

Just managed to pick up a Mint 17-85 F/4-5.6 IS for very cheap.

I always remember it being pin sharp and a great walk about lens when I had my 40D a few years ago..

What's your opinions on it, and any pictures to share?

 

[RichardTaylor]

The focal length range is good as the the IS. The IQ is ok (not great) however it meeds my needs for web publishing and prints up to 10x8.
Here are some from a vacation a few years ago. All have been downsized for web publishing and PP'd from the original 350D RAW files.

#1

Early morning on the firehole. - 1129 - Do not download this image under any circumstances. by dicktay2000, on Flickr

#2

Tourists. by dicktay2000, on Flickr

#3 Hand held.


Rathaus, Goslar Germany. by dicktay2000, on Flickr

#4

St Wolfgang, Austria by dicktay2000, on Flickr

 

[FlyingShrapnel]

love the range on it, i bought my second hand as a walk about lens upgrade to the kit 18-55. the lens "looks" good and i find the USM focus very fast and accurate. Only down sides I can think of is the loose zoom barrel, my lens keeps extending itself when im walking around with it. and the barrel distortion on the wide end is quite bad, but easily fixed in lightroom. and the internal aperture control cable or something broke on me and i had to get it fixed, but thats a special case.

all in all rather happy with it. i do have some good shots i took with it, but will need to dig them out

 

[woof woof]

My VHO of the Canon 17-85mm...

Good focal range, mediocre aperture, good IS, good USM, mediocre image quality with excessive distortion at the wide end, gives the impression of cheap build.

Overall... a good spec (apart from the aperture) but pedestrian in use and a 17-50mm f2.8 suited me better.

 

[Dave *]

My VHO of the Canon 17-85mm...

Good focal range, mediocre aperture, good IS, good USM, mediocre image quality with excessive distortion at the wide end, gives the impression of cheap build.

Overall... a good spec (apart from the aperture) but pedestrian in use and a 17-50mm f2.8 suited me better.

I would agree, it was a lens I never really liked. The distortion at 17mm was incredibly bad and overall IQ just average. I would take an 18-55IS in preference to the 17-85, let alone the 17-50 f2.8 options available.

 

[FlyingShrapnel]

I would agree, it was a lens I never really liked. The distortion at 17mm was incredibly bad and overall IQ just average. I would take an 18-55IS in preference to the 17-85, let alone the 17-50 f2.8 options available.

i agree that the IQ was very close to the kit lens, i have done some personal comparison shots and it is not distinctly better than my 18-55 Mk II non IS. however i use it for the longer focal range and the slightly faster focus. it is very handy for shooting say a netball match from the side lines, wide enough to cover half the court but then on the long end just about narrow enough to do close ups of head and the body down to waist level. personally i dont mind the distortion, i feel like it adds to the wide feeling, and its easily corrected in PP anyway.