|
|
calsey_dica
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Nov 18, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 60
|
|
Review Date: Nov 6, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $940.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent sharpness and color rendition; contrasty; constant f/2.8 coupled with IS; very usable range
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy and bulky; potential for dust; not weather-sealed; expensive for EF-S
|
|
I use this with my 50D. It delivers an excellent IQ with sharpness that only L grade lenses can match. My copy is so sharp that I can only see a very marginal improvement in the IQ when stopped down. It is simply an amazing lens to be used with APS-C Canons. If you have one of the rebels, be sure to test it out in person before committing. Because this lens is so huge and heavy, it will look/feel/function unbalanced with the smaller rebel series bodies. Almost perfect with any of the xxD bodies or with the new 7D. All in all, highly recommended.
|
|
 Nov 6, 2009
|
|
Alek Komarnits
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 3, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 440
|
|
Review Date: Oct 20, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,030.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Constant 2.8 rocks, fast/accurate focus, razor sharp image quality on 7D
|
|
Cons:
|
Slightly heavy and pricey ... but what 'ya expect for both?!?
|
|
Not much to add beyond what other people have written. I have wanted this lens for a long time, but finally broke down and got it - wish I had done sooner. Nice on my 50D, but deadly on my recently acquired 7D
As others have said, get a lens hood, but one of the el-cheapo 3rd party knockoffs seem to work fine for me.
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2009
|
|
BorreSven
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 18, 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Oct 11, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Constant f2.8 aperture, Image Stabilization, USM focus motor, High Quality Glass.
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight is due to f2.8
|
|
Like many happy reviewers before, I'm very pleased with this lens. The focal range covers most general usage. The constant f2.8 aperture was one of the criteria I wanted in a lens.
Before this lens I owned a Sigma 15-30 and 24-70 f2.8. These were a lot of fun, but I got tired of having to carry around two lenses. Also, the image quality of the Sigma's wasn't always up to standard which made things very frustrating after coming home and reviewing the pictures and finding them not up to spec.
Anyhow, I sold the Sigma's and added a little extra cash to afford the 17-55. Overall I'm very pleased with the lens. The sharpness is superb over the entire focal range. Also, the added Image Stabilization (IS) allows sharp pictures with shutter speeds of 1/6 of a second taken from hand. That's something that no other lens does!
I would also recommend getting the hood for this lens and a quality UV or CP filter. The only downside to this lens is the overall weight. To me its acceptable because it is compensated by the IS, USM and f2.8.
The debated issue with the hood and other accessories not being included might be a little up tight considering the price of the lens. However Canon only includes these with their "L" series. Personally, it might be a little tight from Canon, but if you can afford this lens then the hood shouldn't be that much of a problem financially.
In short, if you're looking for a general purpose lens with high quality optics and fast performance this is the one to get! Sigma and Tamron offer similar optics (I've tested both), but these don't compare to the Canon.
Cheers!
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2009
|
|
wfr2
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: May 14, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 831
|
|
Review Date: Oct 5, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp and fast
|
|
Cons:
|
heavier and bulkier than I expected
|
|
I hesitated a long time before buying this lens. I was using a 17-40mm and 24-105mm lens combination on my 50d but did not want to carry 2 lenses while touring the sites on vacation and the 17-40 just lacked the range I needed so I bought this one used on FM. Very impressive sharpness and the extra stop will be nice in those old churches. Build quality is good but not quite in the same class as the 17-40 and 24-105. Seems a bit pricey if buying new.
|
|
|
Oct 5, 2009
|
|
EZarris
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 1, 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 1, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast AF, constant fast f/2.8 aperture, great colors & contrast, SHARP.
|
|
Cons:
|
way overpriced, build quality, vignetting, a little short on the long end, EF-S only.
|
|
If this lens had the build quality of an L lens, it would be well worth the price. But it's not an L, although it's priced like one. Fantastic lens all round, but should have been a EF and L lens. That would make it almost perfect.
|
|
|
Oct 1, 2009
|
|
vince
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Location: China
Posts: 304
|
|
Review Date: Sep 28, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp at all focal lengths, fast focusing ring USM.
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality.
|
|
$1000 for an all-plastic 17-85 type zoom? For this price I'd expect L build quality even if it doesn't have CaF2 fluorite elements or ED glass. The optics are very good, but I somehow get better micro-contrast and color rendition with the 17-40L.
I'd have bought this if it were a $500 lens, but at over a grand, I personally feel it's a waste of money for a 1.6 crop lens. I kept the 17-40L.
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2009
|
|
headac3e
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 3, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 5, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $960.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp wide open at all focal lengths, very fast (f/2.8 constant), IS works well, focus is fast enough
|
|
Cons:
|
vignettes at wide shots with large aperture, price, build, no included accessories (e.g. hood), crop lens, relatively big and heavy
|
|
This is a must have lens for crop sensors. There is no equilivant on a full frame side (well, there's the 24-70 but without IS). It is sharp, fast, and focuses very well. This is mounted on my 40D 99% of the time--my default go-to lens. It covers the most commonly used focal lengths at a fixed aperture. It is not L designated thus no included hood (must fork over $50 for a canon branded one), not weather sealed, etc. For the price, I would expect at least the hood to be included :T.
|
|
|
Sep 5, 2009
|
|
fabianfoo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 18, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 30, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,150.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp even wide-open at f2.8
Image stabilisation very useful
Very fast focusing
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens + hood is a little large
Expensive for a non-L series lens
A little short at the telephoto end
|
|
So I recently made the brave decision to take only this one lens (on my 50D) on a vacation to Peru. I was feeling a little lazy and just didn't feel like lugging multiple lenses around and swapping them in the field.
I was very pleased with my decision and the results.
Yes there were occasions I missed the ultra-wide of my 10-22mm and the background defocusing and telephoto capabilities of my 70-200mm, but the convenience and lighter weight were a worthy trade-off.
The f2.8 aperture allows for a fair bit of defocusing for portrait shots and I got into the habit of shooting multiple exposures for ultra-wide panoramas.
It is very fast to focus, the ergonomics are good and the image stabilisation very useful (if a little less effective than my 70-200mm). All in all, a great one lens package for travel/vacations.
I would not hesistate to recommend this as a one-lens solution for people in situation similar to what I was facing prior to my Peru trip.
Photos here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fabian-f/collections/72157621753884989/
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2009
|
|
arovane
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 20, 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 35
|
|
Review Date: Jun 25, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IS , F2.8 Nice Colors, not that heavy
|
|
Cons:
|
Dust Dust Dust and the Buildquality
|
|
I love the IS, you can take images in nearly every situation. But the dust inside sucks! its just like a vac :-)
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2009
|
|
Peter 13
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 24, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Apr 19, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,030.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
color, contrast, sharpness, fast, stabilized, well build
|
|
Cons:
|
Strong vignetting at f/2.8, big, heavy, expensive, no hood, zoom ring not smooth
|
|
I have had this lens for about two months and used it on a recent vacation trip. I also own the 18-55 IS, the 70-200 f/4 IS, the EF-S 60, and the 10-22; I owned and have sold a few other ones. I was a bit hesitant to get this lens based on a limited past experience but I finally decided to do it. This lens exceeded all my expectations. The color is outstanding, similar to that of the 10-22 and much better than the 18-55IS. Probably the 70-200 is a bit warmer. Local contrast is great, too. Amazing sharpness, that cannot be just described by numbers. My camera meters better with that lens than with the 18-55IS, the highlights are better defined. AF is more accurate, too. No dust so far (knock on wood) but I screwed a B+W filer on it the moment I took it out of the box and never took it off. CA is so well controlled that I do not bother correcting it.
This lens has a very solid build, made of high quality plastic material (why would plastic bother anybody?) but not very polished. I did not notice glare issues and I did test it with the sun almost in the frame. I use a hood though most of the time.
Cons: It vignettes a lot at f/2.8. Not something surprising for fast zooms, but the Tamron vignettes less. Of course, this can be corrected with little penalty. The zoom ring is not moving smoothly, kinda gets stuck in the middle of the range. I expected the IS to be more effective, maybe spoiled by my 70-200 – a few quick experiments showed that the 18-55 IS stabilizes a bit better. Still, there are 2-3 stops gain at 55 mm, that is good enough. Big, and heavy. Noticeable distortions at both end but expected for a normal range zoom, better than the kit. Overpriced.
This lens simply has no alternative. For the price, it should come with a hood and better finish but once you see the photos, you forget about that. The combination of a constant f/2.8 and an IS is unique and a blessing for low light photography.
10 stars for IQ, AF, and features (IS), 9 for build (the zoom ring), and 8 for price (but again, there is no alternative).
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2009
|
|
bblanco
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 12, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Mar 21, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
None
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive, no barrel lock, feels like a cheap plastic toy, dust, canot be used on all bodies, cannot manage to focus track ANYTHING under ANY conditions, no hood, constantly searches for focus in low light.
|
|
I cannot honestly say a single positive thing about this lens. I've tried 3 of these and they're all very poor examples of Canon workmanship. I'd just buy the 16-35 f/2.8 or a used 17-35 f/2-8 for a fraction of the cost of this lens. I've never given anything a negative review but I wanted to warn anyone interested in buying this lens that there are better alternatives on the market. I'd sooner buy a Soligar, Vivitar or cheapo Quantaray lens then spend money on this thing again.
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2009
|
|
sabatia
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 12, 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Feb 16, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
After nearly 40 years of shooting pictures, including now my fourth digital slr, having owned half a dozen L lenses(still own 4), and having owned a beautiful Contax G2 with its superlative Zeiss lenses: this is one of the nicest lenses ever made. I had been using the 17-85 as my walk-around lens for at least three years and found it quite satisfactory, including images I printed larger than 17x24 inches on my wide-format printers. I'd resisted buying this lense because of price, weight, and the proported dust issue. But after getting a "Christmas" bonus in late November and struggling to correct distortion in architectural images when using the 17-85, I made the leap.
The image quality with this lens is just superb, the sharpness is nice, but the improvement in color brightness over the 17-85 is just shocking. The fact that the lens is faster at 2.8 is also huge, if unrealized before, plus.
This past Saturday I was asked to shoot my boss's 78th birthday, which was held in one of his old but somewhat dimly lit antique houses. Two of his kids were there, one shooting with an XSi like me but with the 17-85 and the other with his new 5D MKII with 17-40L. After every set up, as we shot side by side, we would compare on the LCD. The 18-55 got probably 30% more usable images with its speed. But what really stunned the three of us was the brilliance and apparent accuracy of the colors. What beauty this lens captures and what beautiful images it makes!
This lens is now on my camera 90% of the time and my camera is with me 7/24. (My other daily lenses are the efs10-22 and 70-200 f4 L IS, plus 300 f4L IS as needed.) I am out in nasty conditions often and my loaded camera bag is in my truck bumping along some very bad roads all too often, but I have yet to see any dust inside. I don't keep a filter on the front as I don't like anything between the good glass and the subject. In fact, the colors out of this lens are so bright and clear, that I find myself using my high-end circular polarizers far less than before.
Highly recommend.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy and costly. But that's the price of something that helps to create true beauty. For me, the great image quality and ability to work in low light trump these negatives.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2009
|
|
|
