Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload

2 end

michael49
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #1 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

I have a 40D and for landscapes I use my 10-22 and my Sigma 17-70. I know that I should use a tripod, but often I don't have the time or my wife won't wait

and I really want a lens in this FL with IS.

I know that I probably should just suck it up and get the 17-55, but the 17-85 is just so tempting in terms of the price and range.

Is anyone here really happy with their 17-85 for landscapes? Or is the distortion and CA just too much to be acceptable.

I still think about the 24-105 in combo with my 10-22. It sounds good on paper; 10mm-105mm, but I think this combo would cause me to be constantly switching lenses.

Edited on Nov 17, 2007 at 04:42 PM

Nov 16, 2007 at 08:03 PM

DubRepublic
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #2 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

Believe it or not, yes I am very happy with the 17-85 that I have. Time and time again I've been blown away by how well it performs. It's not stellar at 17mm but it's far better than a lot of other lenses I've tried. The IS works very well. My copy is sharp and the colours are nice and true but still vibrant.

Maybe I was lucky to have gotten a really good copy. I'm having trouble letting it go now that I have a 24-105L and a Tokina 12-24

If I had to pick one inexpensive walkaround lens the 17-85 would be it for sure.

Edited on Nov 17, 2007 at 04:42 PM

Nov 16, 2007 at 08:45 PM

BubbaJon
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #3 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

Add me to the list. I've always shook my head when I heard people bad mouth this lens. It's crispy, good color & contrast and the IS works superbly. Seriously a great walkaround for any of the Canon crop cameras. As mentioned 17 isn't the best but it's also not the worst either and is acceptable to me.
regards,
Jon

Edited on Nov 17, 2007 at 04:42 PM

Nov 16, 2007 at 08:49 PM

mbellot
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #4 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

The range, IQ (despite the detractors out there), USM and IS all in a very compact lens is a killer combo for "everyday" shooting.

I loved mine dearly until I got a 24-70 L for Christmas last year.

Now the poor thing just collects dust.

Edited on Nov 17, 2007 at 04:42 PM

Nov 16, 2007 at 09:00 PM

Gary Petersen
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #5 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

I never leave home without the 17-85IS.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Edited on Nov 17, 2007 at 04:42 PM

Nov 16, 2007 at 09:40 PM

michael49
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #6 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

Gary Petersen wrote:
I never leave home without the 17-85IS.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Great stuff, especially this one.

Edited on Nov 17, 2007 at 04:42 PM

Nov 16, 2007 at 10:19 PM

UCSB
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #7 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

If you pick up the 17-85 ... try DxO Optics Pro for your RAW conversions. It's optics and other (CA, etc.) corrections solve many of the problems with this lens. The photo above illustrates one of the nice things about the 17-85; it has nice close-up capabilites. Very flexible lens.

Edited on Nov 17, 2007 at 04:42 PM

Nov 16, 2007 at 10:51 PM

A.Y.
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #8 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

17-85 IS is still my "MAIN dSLR" standard lens only because batch processing the RAW files to get rid of the unacceptable amount of CA and distortion is just too easy with Photoshop / Bridge CS3 nowadays. Second reason is, after getting 2 bad copies of 17-55 IS, I gave up on Canon for now. Without RAW processing and help by the much larger 1.6X crop sensor, 17-85 IS is actually worse than than the lens on my $270 SD800 IS - a P&S.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Edited on Nov 17, 2007 at 04:42 PM

Nov 16, 2007 at 11:16 PM

danmitchell
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #9 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

I think it is a fine lens for many purposes and for many users - even though I sold mine over a year ago.

It does have its issues - pincushion/barrel distortion, corner softness, vignetting, etc. - but these are not a significant to many folks who never print larger than letter size and who want an all-in-one package.

Edited on Nov 17, 2007 at 04:42 PM

Nov 16, 2007 at 11:49 PM

ibilly
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #10 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

and even though the IS is great, i'd gladly sacrifice the extra range for the extra light (17-55 I vs 17-85 IS)

5.6 is pretty dim...

You can def. get good results from this lens, but that means stopping down (and WA isn't it's forté). Follow the sun and give up when it does?

Edited by ibilly on Nov 16, 2007 at 05:21 PM GMT

Edited on Nov 17, 2007 at 04:42 PM

Nov 17, 2007 at 12:25 AM

Gary Petersen
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #11 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

Pretty honest review here. I especially agree with the last sentence.

Edited on Nov 17, 2007 at 04:42 PM

Nov 17, 2007 at 12:30 AM

jlandaue
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #12 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

I like the 17-85 because of the Wide-to-Zoom range and the IS.
Not too sharp, but not too soft, but this lens do the work.

This lens is a work horse.

Edited on Nov 17, 2007 at 04:42 PM

Nov 17, 2007 at 01:09 AM

BubbaJon
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #13 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

A.Y. wrote:
17-85 IS is still my "MAIN dSLR" standard lens only because batch processing the RAW files to get rid of the unacceptable amount of CA and distortion is just too easy with Photoshop / Bridge CS3 nowadays. Second reason is, after getting 2 bad copies of 17-55 IS, I gave up on Canon for now. Without RAW processing and help by the much larger 1.6X crop sensor, 17-85 IS is actually worse than than the lens on my $270 SD800 IS - a P&S.
Man you got a dud - I never see that kind of CA with mine. Seriously - that's soem bad CA you got in those edge shots shown.
Regards,
Jon

Edited on Nov 17, 2007 at 04:42 PM

Nov 17, 2007 at 02:45 AM

A.Y.
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #14 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

BubbaJon wrote:
Man you got a dud - I never see that kind of CA with mine. Seriously - that's soem bad CA you got in those edge shots shown.

dpreview tested a dud just like mine then

Edited by A.Y. on Mar 28, 2008 at 11:02 AM GMT

Edited on Mar 28, 2008 at 07:02 PM

Nov 17, 2007 at 06:40 AM

bill savitz
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #15 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

I was intent on selling mine based on all the negative comments I hear about it. But quite honestly, mine must be an exceptionally good copy because every time I look back through the photos I've taken with it, I'm impressed with the IQ.

Nov 17, 2007 at 04:42 PM

zincmask
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #16 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

I am in the situation if I want to sell my 17-85 and get the tammy. But I don't know, with all the negative commetns, I actually like the color it produces. It isn't sharp like razor, but it gives me more keepers than my 50.8
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I am frustrated!!! I Don't know what to do!!

Mar 27, 2008 at 08:08 PM

jlandaue
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #17 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

17-85 is a good lens for everything. Don't get rid off it.

Mar 28, 2008 at 04:00 AM

catfriend
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #18 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

Question: Will you be taking photos of brick walls, especially those composed of black and white bricks? Will you and your wife be shooting pictures of charts on a wall, and then cropping them drastically and having them made into 4 x 6 foot posters for your walls? Or will you be taking photos of more "normal" subjects -like the landscapes you mention - and printing standard size prints? If the former you might not be happy with this lens (or lots of others). If the latter you might find yourself quite pleased with its versatility and quality. Reading all the negatives from pixel peepers just breeds anxiety about whether you're making the "Right Decision." You already know this lens provides the range you're looking for at a price you're willing to pay. If you need more reassurance rent one for a weekend and see if you're happy with it. Then you'll be able to decide for yourself.

Mar 28, 2008 at 05:45 AM

EltonTeng
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #19 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

The EF-s 17-85 is one of those lenses that I felt badly for owning because of one or all of the following:

-I paid too much (esp compared to similar 3rd party lenses)
-possess seemingly inadequate specs for many situations
-does not perform well in many "tests"
-... (insert complain here)

But, it was so convenient for travel or night time photography (with tripod) because of its zoom range. I found myself using it with a 20D almost exclusively on a trip three years ago.

Bottomline is that it is fine for general purposes. You probably won't notice the distortions much on landscape.

Mar 28, 2008 at 06:28 AM

tsangc
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #20 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

Yeah, it CA's badly at 17mm, it's only f/4, and it sucks in dust like a vacuum cleaner.

But the 17-85 is a fantastic solution, if not a fantastic performer. It has a perfect focal range for general use, especially for traveling. IS is great for night and low light shots. The price is right too.

Given the expense (Canon 17-55mm EF-S, 24-70mm or 24-105mm on an FF body), the lack of range (Tamron 17-50mm, Canon 17-40mm) or unsuitable range (Canon 28-135mm) of other options, the 17-85mm excels at being "good enough" in all areas.

Here's some photos where I think the value of this lens comes in handy:

This was shot handheld off the peak of Hong Kong Island on vacation. Without IS, I don't think I could have got this shot.

In good light, the 17-85mm is sharp enough.

On a 12x18" print of the last photo, yes, there is CA on the edges of the tree branches, sure. But having a 17mm wide FL is handy, to capture the size of this tree.

Even though I have purchased better glass, I still have kept my 17-85mm to use with my crop bodies.

Mar 28, 2008 at 07:37 AM

Jun Zhou
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #21 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

17-85 is a good lens, i just dont like the dust in my glasses, so I sold my 17-85 for 24-70.

Mar 28, 2008 at 07:39 AM

Alan321
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #22 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

Most people would regard the 17-85 IS as a good lens unless/until they were spoiled with high price L lenses. The focal length range is excellent, covering genuine wide angle to genuine telephoto range equivalent to 28-135 on a full frame camera. Construction may not be better than the 28-135 but the reduced size and weight sure makes it feel better - e.g. no self-zooming when you point it up or down.

IS is helpful for most of us but of course this lens is not intended for fast sport. IS helps in low light to make up for the small aperture.

Be aware that as you are using a 40D the latest Canon DPP software and third party applications such as PT Lens can correct CA, vignetting and distortion. DPP will do it with raw images too. The only thing you cannot easily correct is a lack of resolution. That, however, is not likely to be a problem unless you make large prints and/or have a very critical eye and/or have a substandard sample of the lens.

It is not a lens that will allow your camera to do high-precision AF but even so your 40D will still operate with two-dimensional AF sensors that work better than the linear sensors on older cameras. That should make AF more responsive than on the other cameras.

I confess that I sold my 17-85 but that was because I've left the 1.6 FOVCF cameras and gone to the pro 1D2 and 1Ds2 cameras with which the lens does not work.

- Alan

Mar 28, 2008 at 11:49 AM

DubRepublic
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #23 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

If there is one lens that I miss and regret selling it was my 17-85 IS. It was a perfect copy and a perfect walk around for a crop sensor.

Honestly I'm thinking about picking up another one to replace it.

Mar 28, 2008 at 01:01 PM

cohenxa
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #24 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

After reading several comments (mainly bad) on the 17-85 I tried several other options: 17-55, Tammy, Sigmas...if others have their advantage in IQ, none of them can cover the same range...when you start get use to the range cover by the 17-85, you become easily frustrated by the other offerings. OK IQ is not stellar, but I will miss a LOT of good and great shot without it....On my last business trip, I travelled by helicopter...guess what? my prefered shot were taken at (drums): 17mm, 35mm, 41mm and 72mm! I would have miss at least one of them without this lens! Since I owned the 10-22, I switch to it when I need IQ in sub 22mm! but for a WA lens, I will keep it and purchase it again if I have to re-do it. Life is trade off, this is the one some of us has done.

Mar 28, 2008 at 04:21 PM

paulfeng
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #25 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

michael49 wrote:
I have a 40D and for landscapes I use my 10-22 and my Sigma 17-70. I know that I should use a tripod, but often I don't have the time or my wife won't wait

and I really want a lens in this FL with IS.
<snip>

Other than the lack of IS, how do you like your 17-70? I keep hearing rave reviews, and think I should get this lens for when I don't want to haul The Brick (24-70) around, plus gain the 17 wide.

(Sorry for the tangent... but the impression I get from the forums is that the 17-70 is superior to the 17-85, except IS, 71-85mm, and non-USM)

Mar 28, 2008 at 04:36 PM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 end