Canon 20D with the EF-S 17-85mm USM IS lens

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

03/09/2005 02:31:24 PM · #1

Has anyone tried this combo yet? I'm seriously looking at upgrading to the 20D. I plan to keep my Rebel so I don't need another 18-55 lens, but the new EF-S 17-85 sounds pretty good, especially having IS on it.

I'm just wondering about the quality of the glass and whether you think the lens is worth the extra $500 it tacks onto the price of the 20D.

Thanks!

Moose101

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

03/09/2005 02:44:11 PM · #2

I would also be interested as it's part of the Rebel XT kit... Sorry can't tell you more...

here's a link to FredMiranda Site

Check out the reviews

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

03/09/2005 02:48:29 PM · #3

all first hand accounts and reviews say the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 blows the canon 17-85mm lens away...

.... and i've been doing a LOT of research :)

agwright

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

03/09/2005 02:51:45 PM · #4

I'm sure Gordon had this camera and lens

PM him I'm sure he won't mind....

Telehubbie

Canon EOS-40D

03/09/2005 02:54:43 PM · #5

When I got my 20d I opted for the 28-135IS and I love it. It's pretty sharp and the extra reach is nice. But if you're going to shoot more wide-angle stuff this isn't the one for you.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

03/09/2005 05:05:25 PM · #6

Originally posted by hopper:

all first hand accounts and reviews say the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 blows the canon 17-85mm lens away...

.... and i've been doing a LOT of research :)

I have the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and love it. This will be an additional lens for me. What attracts me to it is the wider angle (often 28mm just isn't wide enough) and the IS. But I'm unsure of the quality of the glass and it bothers me that the maximum aperture is f/4-5.6.

03/09/2005 05:13:16 PM · #7

I have exactly that combination and absolutely love it.

I have quite a few lenses, but since I got the 20D with the 17-85 that is the lens that sits on my camera ready to go.

It is not quite as good as some of my other lenses, such as my 50mm f1.4 or 100mm f2.8 for instance, doesn;t have the reach of the 100-400 IS L (that would make up the 4 lenses I actually use) but ....

It is an absolutely fantastic work horse lens, and a perfect lens to have on the camera if you are taking it anywhere "just in case". I saw it reviewed once where it said "if you are ever going somewhere, like vacation, and need a one body/lens combo this is perfect" and I have to agree.

I also use it extensively in the studio. I do prefer my 50mm but often find I need something wider and this does the trick.

However, I have also seen other reviews which did not rate the lens as highly. I have a Tamron 19-35 (I think it goes to 35) and although it is an ok lens, it does not to me have the same quality as the Canons, but then it was a fairly cheap lens. I am sure the Tamron 28-75 lens is fantastic ... but it only goes out to 28mm, so is not really the same as the 17mm here.

Depending on what you want to do, if it is mainly wide angle, I have heard the Canon 12-40 L (or something like that) is meant to be pretty good, but I have never played with one.

As for the 18-55 you already have .... I got given one of those for free when I got the 20D. They did not have body only, so gave me that kit for the body only price. I am not a fan of that lens at all, it just feels plastic, so don't compare it with the 17-85 are they really are entirely different beasts.

As for results with exactly this combination, model shoots only sorry, check out this part of my portfolio ... everything there is taken with this lens. Or, for a couple of examples here:

Message edited by author 2005-03-09 17:17:45.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

03/09/2005 05:26:43 PM · #8

I have this combo and really like the lens. Some say it's overpriced and I actually agree - but I was willing to spend an extra buck to have one lens which could do almost everything. The 18-55 kit plus 28-135IS goes for similar price and longer range, but, two lenses instead of one which for my usage is a serious drawback.

I do have additional lenses, the 50 1.8 and 100-300, but those I use more as ''special purpose lenses''. The 17-85 is excellent as the one to keep on at all times.

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

03/09/2005 05:39:54 PM · #9

Originally posted by ss:

What is excellent about 100 $ cheap lens with 300$ IS on it ?
Blury corners and f4 maximum aperture....

Photo zone got some mediocre score for that glass:
Canon EF -S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS Ok
(**-) Ok
(**+) Ok
(**+) good
(***) heavy distortions
(**) little distortions
(****) significant (w/o)
(***) little vignetting (w/o)
(****-) neutral some flare
(***-) average
(2.74) Ok
(***) good
(***-) 29

Message edited by author 2005-03-09 17:45:19.

03/09/2005 06:39:12 PM · #10

Originally posted by ss:

I have this combo and really like the lens. Some say it's overpriced and I actually agree - but I was willing to spend an extra buck to have one lens which could do almost everything.

That is exactly how I feel and could not have worded it better.

The lens should probably be around 75% of it's actual price at a guess.

It is certainly not a lens to consider if your main criteria is value for money.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

03/09/2005 07:24:07 PM · #11

Originally posted by Natator:

I also use it extensively in the studio. I do prefer my 50mm but often find I need something wider and this does the trick.

...

As for results with exactly this combination, model shoots only sorry, check out this part of my portfolio ... everything there is taken with this lens.

Love the shots! One question though... I read somewhere else that the image was soft and that they didn't feel it was a good lens for 8x10 and over. Your images look great as you've shown them here ... but have you done large prints with that lens yet? (I suspect the other review was wrong and am hoping you will repudiate it, but thought I'd better ask to be sure)

I expect to do many 11x14s and some 16x20s, so if you have any experience at those sizes it would be appreciated.

Thanks for all of your feedback!

03/09/2005 07:45:22 PM · #12

I have done a heap of A4 (Americans call it Letter I think), so that is what, about 12" x 8" and they are fantastic.

I currently have one I am planning on printing far larger, probably something around 40" largest dimension. It looks great at that size on the screen (zoomed in obviously) but I won;t see the printed result for a while yet as I need to find a frame before I print.

Keep in mind with all this ..... I may just be one of those people that are easily pleased, I am certainly not as picky as some people would be. What I decide is a perfect print, with my dodgy eyes, may not be what someone else enjoys.

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

03/09/2005 09:27:20 PM · #13

Canon is selling us balls at a price of kidneys,they should be ashamed for gouging their customers.$610 for that ???

You are better of with Tamron 28-70 f2.8 , or Sigma 18-50 f2.8 if you can't afford an L lens.

viajero

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

03/09/2005 09:46:30 PM · #14

I've had this lens for just a few days but am very happy with it so far. I read several reviews that were down on this lens but they were all comparing it to lenses that have smaller zoom ranges and/or cost a lot more. At the very widest angle and widest aperture it is not so sharp, but everywhere else it is good.

They also tend to compare it to lenses that don't have image stabilization, and pooh-pooh the whole idea of IS. I've found that IS rocks. I can consistently get sharp shots hand-held at full zoom at 1/15 second, oftentimes even slower, and I don't have very steady hands to start with.

The zoom range of this lens is ideal for more than 98% of the shots I want to take. If you only want to carry one lens this is it.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

03/09/2005 10:47:01 PM · #15

I don't have the 17-85. I bought my 20D with the 18-55 because I didn't want to wait another few weeks for the store to get the 17-85 kit. I am a big fan of IS and have had three digicams that have it. I still have two of them even after getting a DSLR. However I don't think IS is as helpful on such a short focal length lens. I have seen it called a $100 lens with a $400 IS by reviewers. I would have been much more impressed if Canon had made a 17-85 f2.8 with no IS. The 20D's ability to shoot great images at high ISO is another way of tackling low light situations, it compensates for not having an IS lens.

Just my two cents.

zagman

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

03/09/2005 10:59:42 PM · #16

I went with the Tamron 28-300mm lens. Actually I have purchased two of them. One for my Canon 20D and the other for my Nikon D70. It makes my life and job easier. No interchaning lens, just shoot short, and long. I am sure that for specific jobs, like macro's, there is much better glass.

03/09/2005 11:07:56 PM · #17

Originally posted by coolhar:

I would have been much more impressed if Canon had made a 17-85 f2.8 with no IS. The 20D's ability to shoot great images at high ISO is another way of tackling low light situations, it compensates for not having an IS lens.

I love having the IS .....

However, I agree completely there. I would rather have the faster speed on a lens like this and sacrifice IS ... assuming the same price for either variation.

viajero