| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/16/2007 09:58:50 AM · #1 |
I'm looking for a new walk around lens to replace the 18-55mm kit lens on my 30d. I would like to have something with at least 18mm for landscape shots. The fact that this lens also has IS I think is a huge bonus for this price point. Are there other lenses (Sigma, Tamron) around this focal range that may be better? Thanks everyone!
17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 09:59:23. |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 10:09:30 AM · #2 |
| I have the lens you listed but I've had nothing but fuzzy images from it. I've been on a sharpness quest and have tweeked my camera (lock mirror, turn off IS when on tripod, etc.) but I cannot get a sharp image from this lens. On the plus side, the range is very useful in so many situations - I would give it high marks in the "walk around" category. I'm thinking I just got a "bad apple". |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 10:10:48 AM · #3 |
For about the same price you can get this:
//www.dpchallenge.com/lens.php?LENS_ID=1333
Not as long, but the 2.8 constant makes up for the lack of IS.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 10:18:42 AM · #4 |
I use the 17-85 IS as my primary lens. Mine is very sharp, and I've been quite happy with it. It is a little on the slow end, so its not as good for freezing fast motion in low light, but I've been happy with it.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 10:19:47 AM · #5 |
I was looking at this lens just now on B&H. Any experience with it? |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 10:25:01 AM · #6 |
I have the 17-85 IS also. I use it as my walk around, for which it has a good range. Not the sharpest, or the fastest, but a decent lens all the same. I find I don't use the IS as much as I thought I would, but still like to have it when I want it. Plus I LOVE the full-time manual focus, which was the main reason I went with it. Other problems is distortion and slight vignetting at the 17mm end. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 10:27:06 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by A4wheelin:
I was looking at this lens just now on B&H. Any experience with it? |
Click on the link, 9 out of the top 10 entries are mine. No ribbon with yet, but close a couple of times.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 10:35:26 AM · #8 |
Personally, I'd get the new Tamron 17-50 f2.8 instead of the slower lens with IS.
It has less distortion, it's sharper, faster and has a brighter finder image to boot. My experience is that IS is not a good substitute for aperture. Canon also makes a 17-55 f2.8 IS lens, but it's significantly more expensive.
Review (head to head with the Canon)
Message edited by author 2007-02-16 10:36:06.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 10:48:57 AM · #9 |
I had the Canon 17-85 IS. I was initially very pleased with it - the range made it perfect for the 1.6x crop body. IS was useful and I took some great shots with it.
I grew frustrated because at 17mm there is more chromatic aberration than I was happy with, and I liked taking photos at 17mm. If I were more focussed on the longer zoom lengths, then this would not have worried me. I was also planning the 5D upgrade.
I subsequently bought the 16-35mm f2.8L, and am very happy how that performs. It is a lot better at providing super sharp images at the wide end, but also a lot more money, than the 17-85 was. It better reflects my preferred style of photography.
The 17-85 is certainly not a bad buy, and I am sure that you would be happy with it. Beware each lens' limitations, and try and choose the one that suits your imagery the best.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 11:21:29 AM · #10 |
I have the 17-85 lens and think it is a nice range for a 1.6x crop. If range is what you're after, I'd prefer it over the shorter 17-50 and other lenses. However, the downsides are: IS really doesn't help much on that short of a lens (you can generally handheld a non-IS lens of that range without much trouble). But the IS adds a LOT to the cost of the lens! And it's relatively slow lens (I'm now an avid member of the 2.8 club).
|
|
|
|
02/16/2007 11:56:59 AM · #11 |
I've been shooting with the 17-85 f/4.-5.6 IS USM lens on my 20D pretty much since it was introduced; it's been my primary walk-around-lens. I've had quite good results with it and have highly recommended it to others, who've also been satisfied with the results ... particularly when you factor in value.
I was initially dead-set on getting the 24-70 f/2.8L when I decided to buy the 17-85 for a trial first. I figured it was cheaper to test a $500 lens and return it if not happy than $1,200 glass.
It's got a perfect walk-around range for the 1.6x crop factor and is nicely compact; the 24-70 f/2.8L is a monster by comparison. I've never turned IS off so can't speak to whether it helps or not from empirical tests, but will say I've shot in conditions I couldn't imagine getting results I did *without* IS (particularly since it's not exactly fast at f/4-5.6).
I've probably snapped 10k shots with this lens now and rarely been let down. I haven't witnessed the chromatic abbrassion many complained about when first introduced (and referenced in this thread). Barrel distortion is a fact of life with any WA and easily over come using PTLens (or similar) during normal post processing.
There are a couple thousand photos in my pbase gallery and the majority (probably 60% or more) were taken with this lens: click to view
That said, it is a slow lens ... especially if you've used or are used to f/2.8. The AF system is a tad slow as well, particularly compared with L lenses. And many have experienced -- myself included -- dust and other particals settling under the topmost element. Not sure the impact they have really as I generally only see sensor dust in images, even at f/13 and beyond, but it is annoying to see dust *in* the glass.
So from a value perspective its hard not to recommend, especially given extensive hands on use of this lens and more expensive L lenses such as the 17-40 f/4L and 24-70 f/2.8L. Purists using either of those lense will scoff at the notion the 17-85 can come anywhere close; I say the results speak for themselves.
Having seen the f/2.8 light I will be ugrading from this lens soon to either the recently introduced EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 -- should I buy the 40D when released and assuming it remains a short-back system like the 30/20D -- or the 24-70 f/2.8L if I decide to go FF and pick up a 5D (or it's rumored successor).
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/02/2026 03:46:20 PM EST.
