What is wrong with the Canon EF-S 17-85mm lens??

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by chasm, Sep 12, 2005.

  1. chasm

    chasm Guest

    chasm, Sep 12, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. It might but why waste the money if you ever plan to go to FF?


    ********************************************************

    "...bray a fool in a morter with wheat,
    yet shall not his folly be beaten out of him;.."

    "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
    William Blake
     
    John A. Stovall, Sep 12, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. chasm

    Larry Guest

    It's really an excellent walkaround lens, I've had mine for 10 months now
    and really love it. Prime lenses tend to be a tad sharper, at least my 35mm
    f2 and 60mm macro are but the range of the 17-85mm and its bulk compared to
    the 24-70 is outstanding. The USM focus is fast and the IS really works when
    your inside and can't open up more than F4-5.6.

    Larry
     
    Larry, Sep 12, 2005
    #3
  4. chasm

    SamSez Guest

    What's wrong? Nothing. No, it won't work with a full-frame camera, but [listen
    carefully nay-sayers] -- so what -- it will help to have a good lens to sell
    with your non full-frame body when/if you do decide to move to full-frame. And
    until then, what you do get out of it on your non-full frame body won't be
    matched by any other >single< lens today. And besides, its' third gen IS is
    hard to match on any current lens. [Flame away.]
     
    SamSez, Sep 12, 2005
    #4
  5. $why would this not make a good walking around lens??

    It would. It's the closest equivalent, for EF-S bodies, of the
    28-135 IS, which has been the walkabout lens for many Canon 35mm
    SLR users, myself included.

    That said, its reputation is that it's similar in optical quality
    to the 28-135. I have the 17-40/4L as well, and the 17-40 is
    clearly better than the 28-135, which means that the 17-40 is likely
    also better than the 17-85. I've seen a few users saying that
    they've tried both, and the general opinion is that the 17-40 is
    indeed better, optically. Of course, with the 17-40 you give up
    a lot of range on the long end and don't get IS. There's no free
    lunch, after all, else we'd all be using the 4-1200mm f/1L IS USM,
    which is the size and weight of the 18-55 kit lens, costs under
    $200 (including the hood), and has close focusing down to 1:1.[/QUOTE]
     
    Stephen M. Dunn, Sep 12, 2005
    #5
  6. chasm

    chasm Guest

    By the time this old warhorse decides to go to FF, if ever, I will be able to
    afford L glass and the 21 megpix camera anyhow. iow, I plan to stick with my
    300D as it does just about everything I want to do. and does it very well.
    but I am pretty limited I feel with the kit lens, 50 and 100mm macros, etc.
    I do like teh idea of this lens and I think that an f/4 70-200 would top off my
    needs.

    thanks to all
    chas
     
    chasm, Sep 12, 2005
    #6
  7. chasm

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    I have one, and it's a very nice lens. Not as sharp as primes or L zooms,
    but still very good. Only for use on sub-frame cameras, though.
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Sep 12, 2005
    #7
  8. chasm

    John Ortt Guest

    I have this lens, it is very good. : )

    I have it on my 2 Gigapixel EOS 1D xyz 2

    Just gotta buy myself a mainframe now to store the pictures on.
     
    John Ortt, Sep 12, 2005
    #8
  9. chasm

    John Ortt Guest

    I have the 17-85 and think it's great.

    Firstly I wanted Canon as if I ever do want to sell the lens on for a decent
    price it's far easier.

    Second I wanted a greater zoom than the kit lens but without any loss of
    wide-angle.

    It was the only option with those criteria...

    IS was a pleasant bonus.

    Now for the downsides...

    It's heavy, compared to the kit-lens it's a brick but then the build quality
    is far higher. I now quite like the weight.

    Also, the EF-S format is a minor drawback as it won't fit on a full-frame or
    film camera but I don't see it being a problem.

    I bought this lens for the here and now. If I ever go full frame I have two
    choices,

    either keep the 1.6 lens and camera as a backup, or sell it off to fund the
    full frame purchase.

    I still think the biggest depreciation will remain in the camera bodies for
    a long time, the lenses (whether EF or EF-S) will continue to remain fairly
    stable even if Canon do drop the 1.6 crop format in five years time or so.
     
    John Ortt, Sep 12, 2005
    #9
  10. chasm

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    It isn't an IS lens.
     
    Neil Ellwood, Sep 12, 2005
    #10
  11. chasm

    Tim Hobbs Guest

    I'm just about to list my 4Tb compact flash on e-bay if you are
    interested? I'm upgrading....


    --

    Tim Hobbs

    '58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
    '03 Volvo V70
     
    Tim Hobbs, Sep 12, 2005
    #11
  12. chasm

    Annika1980 Guest

    There's no free lunch, after all, else we'd all be using the 4-1200mm f/1L IS USM,
    Do they have a macro version that will do 5x?
     
    Annika1980, Sep 12, 2005
    #12
  13. chasm

    John Ortt Guest

    : )

    How much, I could do with another ?
     
    John Ortt, Sep 12, 2005
    #13
  14. chasm

    Tim Hobbs Guest

    Oh yes it is...

    http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/ef_lenses/zoom_lenses/index.asp


    --

    Tim Hobbs

    '58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
    '03 Volvo V70
     
    Tim Hobbs, Sep 12, 2005
    #14
  15. chasm

    John Ortt Guest

    I own one and can confirm that it is an IS lens.
     
    John Ortt, Sep 12, 2005
    #15
  16. chasm

    Bill Funk Guest

    Forget it, there are 4TB cards now, for less.
    The older 4Tb cards are a drug on the market. They were limited to
    400X speed, too. The 4TB cards go up to 2000X speeds.
     
    Bill Funk, Sep 12, 2005
    #16
  17. John,
    Heck, it was last year that I got a camera and lens spec'd like
    that...................but it was a Nikon. :)
    Paul
     
    Paul Schilter, Sep 13, 2005
    #17
  18. chasm

    Dirty Harry Guest

    It's a good lens but mine really sucks at 17mm. My 28-105USM generally
    produces sharper results but I tend to have the 17-85 on any time I go for a
    walk in the evening. The IS is nice. http://harryphotos.com/bridge3.jpg
    this image for example has serious greenish color fringing around the grass
    on the left (I can post a full frame crop later if need). Shot at 17mm.
     
    Dirty Harry, Sep 28, 2005
    #18
  19. chasm

    Tom Guest

    Greenish colour fringe? Mmm, I don't understand. Cool pic BTW, although a
    little bit more Magenta makes it look even better.

    I have only just come into this post, so I don't know the history, but the
    17-85mm does suffer from vignetting at 17mm wide open. Although, a good
    all-round lens. One thing missing is 2.8 aperture.
     
    Tom, Sep 28, 2005
    #19
  20. chasm

    Dirty Harry Guest


    Here is a 100% view, nasty green and red around everything :-(.
    http://harryphotos.com/17mmjunk.jpg what do you think?
     
    Dirty Harry, Sep 28, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.