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.
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.
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)
paulfeng wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.)
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
and I really want a lens in this FL with IS. 
