Canon EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM lens

[John Gibson2]

I am thinking of buying a lens to supplement my Canon f100-400 f4-5.6 IS USM for general scenic and flora pictures. I like the look of the Canon EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM lens but being a natural worrier I wonder if there is any advice as to whether there are better/cheaper/more suitable alternatives that any users could recommend.
Thanks in advance.

John Gibson

[Tyger]

I am thinking of buying a lens to supplement my Canon f100-400 f4-5.6 IS USM for general scenic and flora pictures. I like the look of the Canon EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM lens but being a natural worrier I wonder if there is any advice as to whether there are better/cheaper/more suitable alternatives that any users could recommend.
Thanks in advance.

John Gibson Though I don't own one, the Tamron 28-75mm is highly regarded as one of the best zooms in this range and price. Not as wide as the 17-85mm and no IS but from the reviews and pics i've seen it, it delivers sharp photos and rather accurate colour.

B&H price new: Canon 17-85mm $524.00
Tamron 28-75mm $389.95

check out the review for both lenses at fredmiranda.com, it seems that many love their Tamron.

The other thing to think about is because the 17-85mm is an EF-S lense...if you ever upgrade to a FF camera you won't be able to use this lens.

[pauliev69]

I am thinking of buying a lens to supplement my Canon f100-400 f4-5.6 IS USM for general scenic and flora pictures. I like the look of the Canon EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM lens but being a natural worrier I wonder if there is any advice as to whether there are better/cheaper/more suitable alternatives that any users could recommend.
Thanks in advance.

John GibsonHi John
I have the 100-400 and like yourself was looking for a nice landscape/portrait lens. I bought the 17-85 IS last week, have used it twice for landscapes and general portraits. It is in my opinon a superb lens, very responsive and sharp and the IS is a big bonus, I picked mine up at a local camera shop for £400 so its worth shopping around. If you can ask to try it on your camera and take a few shots, thats what convinced me, hope this helps ;)

[SeanKP]

I am thinking of buying a lens to supplement my Canon f100-400 f4-5.6 IS USM for general scenic and flora pictures. I like the look of the Canon EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM lens but being a natural worrier I wonder if there is any advice as to whether there are better/cheaper/more suitable alternatives that any users could recommend.
Thanks in advance.

John Gibson
Hi John

I had the 17-85 until it was recently stolen. If the insurance company give me money rather than a replacement (probably fat chance of either) I would go for something else. The 17-85 was ok but no better than that in my opinion. I was sold it as being superior to the kit lens but I have my doubts there is much in it. Certainly my copy of the 17-85 suffered from occasionally noticable chromatic aberration when shooting contrasty images. Personally, I'd probably look at the Sigma 15-30 or 17-35 if I were to look again. I know that will leave me with the 35mm - 100mm range not covered but I can't remember the last time I shot anything at those focal lengths anyway. Of course, it is possible I just got a bad copy of the 17-85 so I'd check what others have to say too.

Sean

[baillieswells]

I am thinking of buying a lens to supplement my Canon f100-400 f4-5.6 IS USM for general scenic and flora pictures. I like the look of the Canon EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM lens but being a natural worrier I wonder if there is any advice as to whether there are better/cheaper/more suitable alternatives that any users could recommend.
Thanks in advance.

John Gibson

I have had a Canon EF-S 17-85mm lens, to go with my Canon 350D, for the past four months. As a routine lens on the camera all the time it is perfectly OK, but if one wishes to enlarge above about 9 x 6 inches or, selective enlagargements then it is pretty average. I don't think I have ever come across a lens with such apalling chromatic aberation (colour fringing). It is an absolute disgrace, and Canon should be ashamed of themselves. At the widest angles 17-20mm, my Sigma 10-20mm is far superior, and between 70-85mm,it no way compares with my Canon f4 70-200mm L lens. Which only leaves 20-70mm where I really need it. If I had known at the time that Canon were to produce the EF 24-105mm f4 L lens (it was announced late September) I would certainly have waited. In fact I am still debating whether I should cut my losses and sell the 17-85mm lens and buy the 24-105mm lens..

[robski]

John

I have seen many reports where folk have been disappointed with this lens. I think you will find it is like many of the early consumer lens with an IS attached. Folk think is should be good because of the price but what you have really got is an average lens with IS. The merits of IS on this focal range could be questioned. At the wide end you need to shooting slower then 1/30 Sec and at the long end slower than 1/150 Sec to get any benefit.

Rob

[christineredgate]

The 24-105,is a superb lens.Not quite wide enough for landscapes,bit it does okay.I was supposed to have traded it in as p/ex,when I bought the 70-300,but that evening I took a beautiful sunset shot,so decided to keep it.It is great for portraits,and general shots,buildings etc.

[John Gibson2]

Thanks for all the advice and info. I plan to think further on the matter.
John

[Tannin]

I was going to buy a 17-85IS John, but got shipped the little 18-55 by mistake, and seeing as it cost practically nothing, kept it, at least for the time being. I haven't tried a 17-85, but I am no longer considering buying one.

There are several reasons for this: it is pretty slow at f/5.6 and in consequence doesn't offer much depth of field control; people remark frequently that it has a lot of CA and barrel distortion. Secondly, I'm finding that the gap between 55mm at the long end of the 18-55 and 100mm at the short end of the 100-400L isn't really a problem in real life very often, at least not for me, and in any case I bought the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro the other day: it's just a little bit longer than the 18-55, and very nice. Thirdly, I went stupid with the credit card and bought a wide-angle EF-S 10-22. Apart from the 100-400 of course, it became my most-used lens almost overnight. It's a superb bit of machinery, and fantastically flexible, but together with the 60mm macro, it's pretty much exhausted my lens buying budget for a while.

Sooner or later, I imagine that I'll buy something to replace the 18-55, but there seems to be no hurry. The little lens, despite getting a lot of bad press, is perfectly servicable. Indeed, one thing you might very sensibly consider is buying an 18-55, perhaps second-hand, as even new they cost very little. I'm sort of leaning towards the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8: fast, good optics it is said, and reasonably priced. But the IS on the Canon 24-105 f/4 attracts me, and I've also pondered the bulky and expensive 24-70 f/2.8. Both of these last two are vastly more expensive, especially the 24-70. I imagine I'll go with the Tamron. It's apparently not as solidly built as the Canon L models, but few things are, and I could break two of them and still have spent less. Bit as I said, no hurry. The 18-55 is working just fine.

[compa]

I'm not going to try to recommend a lens but I will advise against any EF-S lens. These lenses are designed for the cropped sensor cameras (350, 20D, Etc.) While these are great cameras (I own the 20D) I wouldn't want to buy any lens that would not fit other Canon cameras!

[QuantumTiger]

I'd have to advise against the 17-85 as well for the similar reasons to others above. I have found it to be fairly soft at the wide end (stopping it down doesn't help that much) and have a fair amount of chromatic abberation throughout.

As a walkaround and portrait lens it is not bad, I've taken many decent shots with it, but it's just not as good as I would like it to be for wide-angle landscapes.

I haven't used it yet, but my current plan is to replace it with the similarly priced EF17-40 f/4 L (which is reputed to be considerably better).

[fc3s89]

Well going against most people here I believe it to be a very good lens. I have used it in all situations and have never found it to be soft. In fact the pictures I was getting from it were comparible to my friends Canon 24-70L. For a walk around lens I really don't know of anything better/more versatile for a Canon 20D or 350D.

Here is a photo I took at 17mm.
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~rx7sv/PI/Pic016.jpg
And one I took at 85mm
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~rx7sv/favourites/Animal05.jpg