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. 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
    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, Sep 12, 2005
  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
  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
  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

    thanks to all
    chasm, Sep 12, 2005
  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
  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
  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

    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

    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
  10. chasm

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    It isn't an IS lens.
    Neil Ellwood, Sep 12, 2005
  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
  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
  13. chasm

    John Ortt Guest

    : )

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

    Tim Hobbs Guest

    Oh yes it is...



    Tim Hobbs

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

    John Ortt Guest

    I own one and can confirm that it is an IS lens.
    John Ortt, Sep 12, 2005
  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
  17. John,
    Heck, it was last year that I got a camera and lens spec'd like
    that...................but it was a Nikon. :)
    Paul Schilter, Sep 13, 2005
  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
  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
  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
    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.