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