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
1

end

michael49
Offline
Image Upload: Off

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

paulfeng wrote:
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)

Well, time really flies. I no longer have the 17-70; replaced it with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and it is an amazing lens optically.

The 17-70 was a good lens though and I think I now give it more credit than when I owned it. I wish it had IS. The close-focusing ability was really nice. It did tend to hunt in low light, however. Great landscape lens, IMO.

Here are a few of my favorites from the 17-70....

One more; I've always liked this one....

Edited on Mar 28, 2008 at 05:41 PM

Mar 28, 2008 at 04:54 PM

Grant808
Offline
Image Upload: On

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

I sold mine...but for landscapes, I found the 17-85 to be a decent performer. If you shoot in the f/8 to f/11 range for max DOF, I think you'd be hard pressed to see the difference between it and the 17-55.

Mar 28, 2008 at 05:57 PM

Koivulehto
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #3 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

I have several L lenses and I was very positively surprised of the IQ of the 17-85 I bought with 400D one year ago. I have printed some shots as 13 x 19 inches high quality prints, and I can't distinguish them from prints of my 5D shots done with L lenses.

Edited on Mar 28, 2008 at 06:42 PM

Mar 28, 2008 at 06:41 PM

timnosenzo
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #4 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

I really like my 17-85, I get great results with it.

Mar 28, 2008 at 08:31 PM

greedus
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #5 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

A fantastic and sharp lens. Good minimun focus and very good IQ for the price, weight, and size. I will be moving to FF, and this is the only thing I will surely regret.
That focal range is hard to come by in FF for all the reasons I stated above. It's a keeper.

Mar 28, 2008 at 09:48 PM

danmitchell
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #6 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

Some people who have posted in this thread ahead of me aren't going to like what I have to say about this lens, but here goes.

I used it on a crop body for about a year and a half. When I started out it seemed logical that it would be a fine performer, and I tried to convince myself for the first year or so. But in the end I found in my own prints pretty much exactly the issues with this lens that have been reported elsewhere.

The issues:

- More CA than is typical for a lens of this type.

- Very noticeable vignetting, particularly at extremes on focal length and aperture.

- Overall soft images, even after sharpening, and very soft corners. I could occasionally get a decent 12 x 18 inch print from this lens, but more often than not an image that looked OK on the screen would not hold up to enlargement

- More barrel/pincushion distortion that expected.

- On a crop sensor body (and that's what it is designed for) you might only get two good apertures between wide open and the point at which diffraction blur begins to affect the resolution.

It is not all bad:

- the 17-85mm focal length range is very useful for many photographers, and for those wanting a "one lens solution" this can be it.

- the IS feature helps overcome the relatively small maximum aperture in some situations

- build quality is decent though certainly not stellar.

What is is fine for: This can be an excellent lens for those who want to avoid lens changes and who will generally not print larger than letter size and/or who will mostly share photos online. Lots of people fit this description.

What it is not so great for: It is no substitute for the higher quality (optically and in terms of construction) L and similar lenses. It falls short in terms of resolution if you want to consistently make prints larger than letter size.

Not a "bad" lens, but it certainly has its limits.

Dan

Mar 29, 2008 at 01:59 AM

15Bit
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #7 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

I also had a 17-70mm Sigma (on a 350D), but i sent it back because it front-focussed quite severely. Subsequently i tried several further copies in a shop and they all did the same, both with my camera and their demonstrator 350D. I got the impression i was not the only one having the same problems either. So definitely try before you buy.

Mar 30, 2008 at 06:00 AM

Chris Fawkes
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #8 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

This is one i shot on a trip to the snow in 06 when there was no snow. Pretty sure i was on 17mm.
Real landscape enthusiest may disagree. I mainly shoot portraits and weddings but i loved this lens when i had a crop body and as others have said i picked up a sharp copy that gave me great images at 20x30 shot on the 20d.
If you pick one up and find it soft send it off for calibration.

Edited on Mar 30, 2008 at 11:01 AM

Mar 30, 2008 at 10:50 AM

Alek Komarnits
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #9 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

As everyone else has stated, great walk-around size/weight/range (with IS) for a crop body. I'm personally happy with my copy in terms of general IQ. Add a 10-22 for ultra-wide and a 50-250 or 70-300DO and you have a killer combination in a small bag. I also have a 50/1.4 for low-light.

Edited on Mar 30, 2008 at 02:07 PM

Mar 30, 2008 at 02:06 PM

ian watstein
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #10 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

I have been asking this question (to my self) for the last few months. When I got the lens I really liked it, it is a great step up from the kit lens I replaced. The only problem is that I also got a 70-200 IS f/2.8 around the same time and find the difference so great that I am seriously contemplating the 24-70; darn L series quality and expense.

I love the range of the lens, it is a great stand alone lens for those times when you need to go from wide to a decent zoom and cannot afford to change lenses or only want to bring one; the build quality is fine and the IS and USM motor are a clear asset (not that the 24-70 doesn't also have USM). Add that the lens is cheap enough to get a 28mm or 35mm prime for the 50mm equivalent with a fast shutter and still come out ahead of the 24-70 and you are set... . I think I would have been fine with this lens had I never gotten my 70-200; darn L series sharpness

Mar 30, 2008 at 02:34 PM

danmitchell
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #11 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

Sharp print at 20 x 30 from the EFS 17-85? I'd love to see that! That isn't exactly easy with more sophisticated equipment...

Dan

Mar 30, 2008 at 04:16 PM

tell
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #12 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

The first art print I ever sold was a 24x36 from an EFS 17-85. It used to be my main shooting lens for everything from landscape to event photography. I have upgraded to the 17-55 IS and the 70-200 2.8 IS, but I keep the 17-85 as back up.

Mar 30, 2008 at 05:38 PM

RobertLynn
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #13 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

danmitchell wrote:
Sharp print at 20 x 30 from the EFS 17-85? I'd love to see that! That isn't exactly easy with more sophisticated equipment...

Dan

I got a sharp print from my Canon G5, it was a crop of the full photo, maybe a 3rd of the 100%, and had it printed to 11X14. I don't think it's unbelievable.

Mar 30, 2008 at 06:32 PM

danmitchell
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #14 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

It may depend on the definition of "sharp."

Hmmm. I never managed to do that with the 17-85. I did get a few fine photographs out of it, but never with sufficient resolution to go beyond 12 x 18, and that not with any consistency. (I absolutely do get that kind of consistency with the gear I now use.) This despite often shooting with a tripod and generally aiming for the best resolution aperture of around f/8 on that lens.

I have one really wonderful once-in-a-lifetime shot of some cloud shadows across a Sierra peak that would be beautiful larger, but with my best post-processing techniques I cannot get print results that I'm happy with beyond (and just barely at) 12 x 18. I have other images that look quite good as web jpgs but which just don't have sufficient detail for larger prints.

The specific issues that I saw with my lens included:

- significant CA and softness in the corners. While the CA can be improved in post, the softness couldn't - there wasn't sufficient underlying detail to work with.

- general softness, particularly with low contrast subjects. Detail in grass and foliage often blurred out to an unacceptable level.

I'd consider the possibility that it was my technique that was at fault, except that I don't have these particular issue with my other lenses.

So, for me, the 17-85 ended up looking like a convenient lens to use on a crop body if you wanted to keep things light and simple and weren't going to make prints bigger than letter size.

Perhaps this is just a case of different standards of sharpness. I'll admit that there is no "right" level of sharpness and that it varies depending upon intended use and so forth. It would be interesting to do side-by-side comparisons between some of these prints (24x36 from the 17-85 and (!) 11 x 14 from a heavily cropped G5) - maybe we'd see that there are differences, and then have to consider their significance.

My upper limit for an image that I'd sell as a "fine art" print from an 8MP original (shot from tripod with L lenses, typically) is 16 x 24 from a good original. (I'd go larger with certain other types of uses, but not for a high quality framed print.)

YMMV.

Dan

Mar 30, 2008 at 09:51 PM

Chris Fawkes
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #15 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

I did a test in 05 between the 17-85, 28-135 and 70-200 2.8 is.
No lab test by any means just a series of subjects that i then viewed at 100% magnification.
The 70-200 was best image quality overall but not sharper than the 28-135. The 17-85 was close though.
I do get my lenses calibrated after i buy them so i'm not sure if that is something to do with it or wether some lenses of the line simply are not going to be as good as others.
The truth is that had the 17-55 2.8 been available i would have purchased that instead and still would were i using a crop body.
That sigma looks quite impressive.

Heres another from my trip to the snow with no snow. 17-85 at 17mm

Edited on Mar 31, 2008 at 03:18 AM

Mar 31, 2008 at 03:14 AM

Dark Slider
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #16 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

danmitchell wrote:
Sharp print at 20 x 30 from the EFS 17-85? I'd love to see that! That isn't exactly easy with more sophisticated equipment...

Dan

No prob, shoot it at f/8 to f/11. A man's got to know his limitations (or his equipment's limitations in this case.)

Photography: the art of compromise. Great photography: knowing what to compromise.

Mar 31, 2008 at 04:42 AM

Koivulehto
Offline
Image Upload: Off

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

The editing rules of posts of this forum have changed since my last visit here.

Edited by Koivulehto on Apr 01, 2008 at 03:55 PM GMT (Reason: Removal of useless post)

Edited on Apr 01, 2008 at 01:55 PM

Mar 31, 2008 at 04:02 PM

danmitchell
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #18 · Anyone really like/love their 17-85?

Hey, I know that stuff. I understand the relationship between aperture and resolution (both theoretically and from testing all of my lenses). I get very "sharp" images from my current gear that can be printed at quite large sizes, so I do understand how to make that happen.

It isn't as easy as "just shoot at f/8 to f/11." In fact, shooting at f/11 is _not_ the best choice for maximum resolution on a crop sensor body since diffraction blur can become an issue beyond about f/8. (f/11 or even f/16 can be fine choice on a FF body.)

From my own extensive experience with the 17-85mm lens I just can't imagine that it would produce the sharpness that I expect in a 20 x 30 inch print - you did mean inches not centimeters, right? I get that kind of sharpness from my current gear and careful shooting technique plus suitable post-processing, but even then it isn't a slam dunk - it requires care and attention to detail. I never came close to that with the EFS 17-85.

Here is an example of a photograph that I made with the EFS 17-85 lens on a crop body a few years ago. It looks pretty sharp in this small jpg and even in a letter size print. But it barely holds up as a 12 x 18 print, and then only with some extensive post-processing in PS - and the presumption that the viewer will not inspect it too closely. I would not sell a print that large from this image without making absolutely sure that the buyer understood this.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

With the same camera but higher quality lenses I produced black and white prints at 16 x 24 that looked quite sharp enough to sell.

Dan

. Dark Slider wrote:
danmitchell wrote:
Sharp print at 20 x 30 from the EFS 17-85? I'd love to see that! That isn't exactly easy with more sophisticated equipment...

Dan

No prob, shoot it at f/8 to f/11. A man's got to know his limitations (or his equipment's limitations in this case.)

Photography: the art of compromise. Great photography: knowing what to compromise.

Edited on Mar 31, 2008 at 04:53 PM

Mar 31, 2008 at 04:49 PM


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