|
|
jasonpatrick
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 8, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Aug 23, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $225.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great walk around, spot on focus
|
|
Cons:
|
distortion, bit slow sometimes.
|
|
I feel a bit obligated to post a review for this lens as I've seen so many bad ones...they just don't do the lens justice I had the choice between this one and a 28-135 for the right around the same price. Reviews of this lens have been all over the board, but because I needed the wider end (planned to sell the kit) I went for the 17-85.
I've had nothing but good images out of this lens. I haven't had any "L" lenses, but I've owned the 50mm 1.4 and the 100mm 2.8 macro and now own the 50mm 1.8, and the 85mm 1.8...so I know what a sharp image is supposed to look like. When I want an artistic shot, a portrait or something else where I'm trying to blow out the background, I have the primes (and they're amazing). When I just want a lens at a party or gathering, the 17-85mm is the one I grab. I probably over analyze my pictures for sharpness...even though I don't make huge prints (most people do this) and even then this lens doesn't disappoint. You just can't underestimate the benefit of image stabilization. I've seen so many reviews where people say they don't need IS it at this range...my keeper percentage is around 75%. That's indoor, low light with no flash. They're sharp, even wide open. Is there distortion? Yes. Big deal. It's correctable. What isn't correctable is getting blur because your hands are shaking or having your back against the wall and still not fitting everything you want into the frame.
The facts are that even 2.8 indoors isn't enough sometimes. Do the math. At 85mm (which I basically never shoot indoors) I'm at a 5.6 f-stop. My 85mm prime is a 1.8. The 1.8 is 3.33 stops faster. With the 4 stop image stabilization, my 5.6 is acting like a 1.4 (for camera shake only), and yes, it works! All the reviews insist that there are better lenses out there. Well no kidding! If cost wasn't an issue...BUT IT ALWAYS IS! If you're not getting paid to take pictures, then you probably don't have the money to just throw away on your hobby. I know I don't. If you want an improvement in aperture, lens sharpness etc...then you have 3 options. the 24-105 f/4 IS at right around 1000, the 24-70 2.8 at 1200, or the 17-55 2.8 IS at 1000....I hear the 15-85mm is really good too, but that lens is still more then 2x more what you can get this lens for. In my opinion (just that, an opinion), the equivalent lenses in non canon brands (sigma, tamron) aren't worth the small amount you save. From what I've seen, they don't focus as consistently or have the color rendering/contrast of Canon lenses. If you're like 90% of the regular people out there you're looking for the least expensive option available that will give you the quality result you're looking for. This lens is it. Buy it and a 50mm 1.8 for when you really NEED the low light performance. No need to abuse the credit card more than necessary.
|
|
 Aug 23, 2010
|
|
Dan Fleury
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Sep 10, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 227
|
|
Review Date: Aug 3, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Great range, IS, light.
|
|
Cons:
|
build a little cheaply for the price
|
|
I have had 2 copies of this lens. The first I had was made in Japan, the second was made in Taiwan. The one made in Japan is tighter built and optically superior. The other was soft, and felt loose and wobbly. It was also lighter in weight.
My good copy is a great lens. Don't let the reviews scare you off in here. It is quite sharp, even wide open. I use it for mostly outdoor use. Indoors it is slow for sure. The IS works great on this lens. The focus is fast and quiet.
It's a great walk-around lens, with very good image quality. Just make sure you have the Japanese made version and you will love it.
|
|
|
Aug 3, 2010
|
|
a1wilson
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 8, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Apr 15, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, IS, reasonably cheap decent quality, range
|
|
Cons:
|
Not pin sharp (but not bad
|
|
I have a 17-40L to compare this to, and OK it is sharp and beautiful, this lens is not as good but it has twice the range and was half the price. Honestly it is brilliant value and gets good enough results when the L is too slow for the light thanks to the IS. Buy this one and get fair results, even if it does feel a little light it is a sound lens!
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010
|
|
nl_age
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 3, 2010
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 3, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
IS
range
fast focus
|
|
Cons:
|
not the most sharp lens
|
|
For me, this lens is perfect. But if you have high demands, than this lens is maybe just not good enough.
Here you can view some photos i made with this lens
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arjan_gerritsen/tags/canonefs1785isusm/.
|
|
|
Mar 3, 2010
|
|
realtime
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 26, 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 20, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
good range, IS is fine
|
|
Cons:
|
over priced, inconsistently soft focus,
|
|
I couldn't overly recommend this lens. The 4-5.6 is simply too slow.
Probably the worst point is the inconsistent focus caused (I think) by the amount of play in the lens.
May be getting a couple of cheaper primes (the 35mm and 50mm 1.8) and the sigma or tamron 17-50mm.
Its not all bad - can also be decent, sharp and the range is good.
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2010
|
|
dnauer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 22, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Feb 13, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
IS is great, sharp in the upper end, light, great range on my 40D. Focuses fast in good light.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lower end soft, also f5.6 at that upper end is pretty dark. Focus roams in dim light.
|
|
Not sure what I "paid" as this was part of my 40D kit when the 40D was new. I've used this lens a lot and have some great shots, some have made a special annual calendar that is pretty competitive to get in, and I've had some nice portriats ans well as nice walk around shots. I do not tend to shoot in the lower range (below 24mm) but feel the lower end isn't as good and intend to get a 10-22 down the road. About 3 months ago I obtained a telephoto prime that just has knocked my socks off, so I'm considering trying an L in this range (24-70 or maybe 24-105) but will keep this lens due to the low weight and excellent range (this matches up with my old Eos Elan film camera with the 28-135, which I also loved). I'm definitely an amatuer so have less demading expectations of my equipment, but would like to try a lens or two at the upper end to see how it fits my shooting style. I think this lens on the used market now (<$300 often) is a good deal -- great IS, great range on a crop, acceptable quality, relatively fast focus in good lighting.
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2010
|
|
tonyliau
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 5, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: Nov 10, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $550.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, great focal range for a walk-around lens, fast focusing
|
|
Cons:
|
Lack of sharpness, drab photos, slow maximum aperture
|
|
Did not like the softness of this lens on the wide end, and also when aperture was wide open. Stopped down was bearable. IQ was unacceptable for me. I sold mine and got the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 instead and have been MUCH happier - so much so, that I do not miss the lack of IS on my Tamron.
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2009
|
|
Asmodeous
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 9, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 139
|
|
Review Date: Nov 9, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Image stabiliser & light weight.
|
|
Cons:
|
17-24mm range, Chromatic aberations & price.
|
|
This can be a good lens. That is if you ignore the 17 - 24mm zoom range.
In this range the lens exhibits some terrible aspects. Huge amounts of distortions, Chromatic aberations and softening of the corners and then toss in a good dose of Vignetting, at least a stop's worth.
Sounds like a bad lens huh? Well, wind the zoom ring around past the 24mm and suddenly most of these problems go away.
The distortions are gone, the corners are much better and the vignetting is almost unnoticable. There is still a bit of CA, but hey. The lens makes a remarkable transformation.
Imho, this is really a 24-85mm lens. Resist the tempation to venture below 24mm and you have a fine lens. It's light and the IS works a treat. A great walk around lens. If you have a UWA lens such as the 10-22mm EF-s, then this lens makes a great partner. Use the UWA up to 22mm and this lens from there on up.
The price is the big hurdle for this lens. Shops want over $1,000 aus for one which is absurd. But this lens is plentiful and picking up one second hand with little use for around $300-400 aus makes it good buying.
|
|
|
Nov 9, 2009
|
|
vince
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Location: China
Posts: 306
|
|
Review Date: Sep 28, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast focusing, reasonably good build quality for a consumer lens, IS.
|
|
Cons:
|
Image quality is average.
|
|
I bought this to replace the 18-55 kit lens before I got the 17-40L. I was a bit puzzled by the results. The cheap fisher-price 18-55 would often deliver sharper results than the 17-85 zoom specially from 18 through 30-35mm or so. I tried the micro adjustment on the 50D but no luck. Thought maybe my lens was a dog, and tried another one at the shop but it came out the same.
The lens is ok from 30-85mm though. Good decent focal length range for general travel, but stop down to f/5.6-6.3 for any sort of decent results. I still haven't been able to get a really sharp image at 17-35/40mm at any aperture.
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2009
|
|
joelypolly
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Apr 24, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight and reasonable size, Good range (27~136mm), IS works well, Good starter lens and walk around lens
|
|
Cons:
|
Contrast isn't quite as good, Plastic body, Image quality could be better
|
|
This is your "standard" zoom lens for Canon cropped bodies, the 17-85mm translates to 27~136 on standard 35mm full frame. This gives you reasonably wide angle and not too bad telephoto. The aperture goes from 4 at 17mm to 5.6 at 85mm. The price is around 600AUD/450USD. Everything about this lens is "standard" or just very average. Now this isn't necessarily a bad thing as this is one of the best standard (read:walk around) lenses for cropped bodies.
The lens is light and quite compact which means you won't be too worried about carrying it around with you all day. It is focuses fast enough to catch most types of action if thats your thing. Nothing about this lens stands out about the crowd but nothing about it is particularly bad.
Now lets talk image quality. Well thats average too... Looking at the photo from 30D it looks great when your zoomed out or printed normal size but at the pixel level it isn't very sharp. If we look at image quality towards the edges well that kinda gets a bit worse but still reasonable if your not pixel peeping. Towards the edge we also run into CA issues especially when using a higher aperture number (ie. anything over 16). Other things to be mindful of is the distortion and vignetting at 17mm.
What about macro work? Well this lens is not to bad for that since it can focus quite close at around 30cm. Flowers and insects won't fill the full frame but you will be able to crop a bit and get a reasonable sized bug. So I guess thats another average point in its favor.
You can check out some sample images from http://joelypolly.blogspot.com/2009/04/canon-17-85mm-f4-56-ef-s-usm-review.html
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2009
|
|
saxologist
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 9, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 17
|
|
Review Date: Apr 11, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
fast quiet and nice range and tack sharp for me.
|
|
Cons:
|
less contrast than other lenses
|
|
I have found that flash helps alot, and just got a polarized filter (linear) and this helps the contrast immensley...so can't sell it yet.
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2009
|
|
hypadizysoiboi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 4, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 26
|
|
Review Date: Apr 3, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $460.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Relatively Cheap, Good Standard Zoom, Semi-Sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
Not a lens for anyone serious about photography
|
|
I bought this lens to replace my kit lens on the 400d. Back then, I knew very little about the world of photography and i just wanted a good standard zoom. This did the job. NOTHING MORE.
If I could rewind time, I would get a 17-40L over this. For about 200 dollars more, you get a much richer tone and sharpness as well as a L-quality build.
After using this lens for a while, i realized that i use it as a prime at 17 usually. I've never actually captured any nice images at any magnification past 50mm.
Also, EF-S means its not compatible with the 5d FF-Sensor. If you want to stick with your 1.6 crop, this lens will do, but if you are planning to upgrade to a 5d, get the 17-40.
I recommend this lens to amateur photographers who just want a lens that covers decent range. If you plan on going professional, stick with the L glass, you almost cant go wrong.
|
|
|
Apr 3, 2009
|
|
another_mikey
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 2, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 204
|
|
Review Date: Mar 28, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
IS, handling, range, reasonable IQ for price
|
|
Cons:
|
variable and somewhat slow max aperture, some distortion and CA at 17mm (fixable in PP)
|
|
I have used this lens for a very large number of shots over the almost 3 years I have owned it. It really has never let me down. I have done travel photography with it as my main lens on a trip to Europe, I have done landscape stuff back here in the states with it, as well as people pictures.
Pros:
- The IS is great. It was literally the difference in getting decent shots or not in many dimly lit churches and museums in Europe.
- The 17-85 range on a crop body really is quite excellent for a walk around lens
- For me, the IQ has really been good. Granted, up to now I have not really has any L quality glass to compare it to, but I have take a number of shots I am very happy with with this lens.
- The size and weight are very manageable, and it has a nice balanced feel on my 40D.
Cons:
- some CA and and distortion, mostly at 17mm. I fix it in PP
- Sometimes there is just not enough light (even considering IS), to get the shot with this lens.
Summary:
Are there better lenses than this one out there? Absolutely. But for the money, it is a nice package of range, reasonable if not outright stellar IQ, and price. I think this lens gets somewhat of a bum rap, it can take excellent pictures.
ML
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2009
|
|
jlandaue
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 5, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 506
|
|
Review Date: Mar 4, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Zoom range, fast focus, accurate, not too sharp but not to soft, reliable, Image Stabilization.
|
|
Cons:
|
Some Purple Fringing, some Distortion wide open.
|
|
Zoom Range, Image Stabilization and being reliable is what makes me not to get rid of this lens. This is the lens that I would never sell.
Because of the zoom range, I will take this lens anywhere. Although not too sharp, the IS and accuracy in this lens helps a lot.
I have used this lens outdoors and for travel, as well as for indoors event, parties, babieshowers, etc. Everything informal.
|
|
|
Mar 4, 2009
|
|
st_dimov
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 29, 2005
Location: Bulgaria
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: Jan 15, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Good range, IS.
|
|
Cons:
|
Nasty purple fringing at the wide end, not sharp at corners, variable aperture is a PITA.
|
|
I decided I do not need the IS in such a short lens and sold it to finance a 17-40L. Quite happy with my choice.
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2009
|
|
|
