17-85mm lens kit?

I've heard several on this forum indicate that the 17-85mm lens is

not a good buy or not a good lens. For the 2k expense for the kit

what would be a better choice? Body only and 3rd party lenses?

I read many mixed reviews about the 17-85 before taking a chance on one. FWIW-I recently traded in my old 28-135IS for this lens and have not regretted it at all.

 

-steve

I believe at that price point, you should buy an L lens. Most people say it is the 28-135 IS of the 1.6 world. and the 28-135 isnt bad but at that price, seems a bit overpriced.

In that price range and approximate focal length the Sigma 18-50f2.8 EX DC looks a promising alternative. I have no direct experience with it and there are so far only a few posts on it, but the limited reports are positive. While you don't get IS, you do get f2.8. At the long end this should recover two of the three stop advantage of IS, plus the ability to use shallow DOF.

I would stay away from third party lenses.

 

Better choices for the 20D would be:

 

1) 17-40/4L plus 50/1.8 ($650 + $70 = $720) => top notch optics.

 

2) 18-55/EF-S kit lens ($100) + 28-135/IS ($424) (18-55 is only so-so optically. . .but well worth the $100. 28-135 is a good mid-grade lens that ALSO is quite nice on other Canon SLR bodies).

 

3) 18-55/EF-S kit lens ($100) 24-85 ($300) (basically, the 24-85 has similar optical quality to the 28-135, but lacks image stabilization (IS)).

 

 

Bottom line:

 

The 18-55/EF-S is good value at $100. Why not get it?

 

The 50/1.8 is a BARGAIN at $70. Optics are excellent. This makes an excellent portrait lens on a 20D. Everyone should buy one.

 

The 28-135/IS ($424), 24-85 ($330), and 28-105/3.5-4.5 ($225) are all well regarded mid grade zooms that work on all Canon SLR's. You can't go wrong with any of these. The 17-85/EF-S would probably join this crowd *if it was not priced so darn high*.

 

The 17-40/4L at $650 is a top notch lens in ALL regards. Optics are a step above the zooms mentioned above, as is build quality.

Most of the bad posts have been from people who have not EVEN used the lense.

 

I've shot 3 weddings with this lense and like it very much.

 

the IS at 35 mm is AWESOME!

 

1/10 of a second handheld CANNOT be done on a 17-40L or a 18-35L

 

Many compare it to a 28-135IS, which I also own, and I MUST say is not as comparatively clean optically. The 28-135IS is an f8 lense, the 17-85 is not and can be stopped down to achieve good results.

 

I think many of the negative posts are 10D owners...

When Bob Atkins says a good thing about Canon, you may disagree. But when he says a bad thing about Canon, it's bad. Bob said that the Canon 17-85mm EF-S price is higher than he had expected. You should believe him.

<br> Jim Larson is a reasonable man. You should also consider his opinions. You'll feel more comfortable with Canon lenses than third party lenses. There might be one exception: The Tamron 28-75mm/2.8.

The 17-85 isn't optically poor, it's just over priced. Image stabilization is a bandaid for a slow expensive lens.

 

I'd get 18-55 $100 and 70-200 f/4L $570

I used to be a lens-quality nut... I keep some old good glass for things where I have the

time to do things that way. I have an adapter to use nikon primes on the 20D, and

annother adapter to use contax/zeiss primes on my 20D.

<P>

But, I really like the 17-85 for a run-around lens and for social events where the reach

from group-shot to head-shot to distant candid is very nice. I can't stand changing lenses

in the middle of things. The speed/accuracy of the 20D/17-85/EX flash autofocus for

dark

indoor events is a real life-saver. In the film age, I had 2 bodies with a wide prime on

one

with a short tele on the other, nowdays that would be great, but business isn't good

enough yet

to buy annother 20D.

<P>

I wouldn't use the 17-85 for wide-angle architecture.

<P>

The IS is much better than I thought it would be, I was really skeptical but I've found the IS

and the high-ISO performance of the 20D make a nice combination for low-light work. E-

TTL II and a colored gel on the 420EX flash with off-camera shoe cord have opened up

<P>

I "had" to get either a 18-55 or 17-85 when I got my 20D as the body-only option was

horribly backordered. In a store, I tried the 18-55 and couldn't bear the wide angle edge

softness. I pointed the 18-55 upwards at a grid pattern of ceiling tiles and ugh! The 17

-85 wasn't that bad at wide-angle, at mid-range is was fine at tele I only noticed a bit of

pincushion. The sharpness wasn't bad, being a recovering lens-a-holic has been good for

me, one lens and one body has forced me to work within limitations. I still have my

manual focus stuff on adapters if I want to relive the days of fanaticism.

<P>If i had to do it again, and I didn't have a pile of old primes, I might get the 17-40 and

a 50 1.8 for about the same price as the 17-85, but I've been spoiled by the zoom reach,

never thought I would, kind of like a switch of religions....

I tried two 17-85s on my 20D, and ended up returning them and ransoming my 28-135 (almost, but not quite sold, thank goodness)

 

My first testing of the first lens was outside the camera store, and I shot it against my 28-135 and was initally impressed, as my 28-135 is "the good one", very sharp corner to corner. A little shopping mall about 100 yds. away was the target, and both lenses let me read the "no parking" signs, two inch high letters, when zoomed in PS, center of lenses

 

But when I got it home (on 10 day return), and shot with subject matter filling the whole frame, down at the 17-30 end, I saw really bad softness at the edges and corners, even stopped down, swapped it for another one, and saw the same things (not quite as bad on the second lens)

 

McCallister, above, likes his, and I saw some really crisp shots on, I think, the Fred Miranda site, so if you get one make sure you have return rights on it. QC seems to have taken a vacation on that lens' line

 

Surprisingly, the 10-22 I splurged on turned out to be quite sharp all round, but it takes in so much that you have to be careful. What I thought was unsharp in the bottom corners was just 5' away, and I was focused about 80' out. I then took it into a comic book store, shot a display rack, and you could read subtitles in each corner

<em>Bob said that the Canon 17-85mm EF-S price is higher than he had expected...</em>

<p>

Yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good lens! I'm hoping to get my hands on one to test, but up to now I haven't had the chance to try one out.

<p>At just under $600, it's not cheap. I'd hoped that maybe since it didn't need full frame coverage it could have been priced closer to the EF 28-135 (which has the same FOV on full frame as the 17-85 on a 20D), but I guess you have to factor in the difficulty of going to shorter focal length and the use of an aspheric element.

<p>

I'd thought that Canon might introduce a line of low cost EF-S lenses, which is why I said I thought it was expensive. Instead, Canon seem to have gone "upmarket" with the 10-22 and 17-85, with those lenses costing about the same as a digital rebel body.

<p>

It will be interesting to see if Canon release any new EF-S lenses at PMA in the Spring of 2005, and if so whether they're consumer lenses of "upmarket" lenses. My guess is that there's at least a 50/50 chance that we'll see a new EF-S lens (or lenses), but it's just a pure guess.

<p>

I think a major factor in favor of the 17-85 is that it has image stbilization. If you don't want or need IS, there may be better value options. The IS is probably costing you between $200 and $300 so it makes no sense to pay for it if you're not going to use it.

The 17-85 is a good lens. It is not cheap. It is a good/bad buy depending on your needs. You can get a 17-40/4L (which is a better lens) for about the same price, but that's only an option if 17-40 is more important to you than 40-85.<p>

If like me you want to be able to take one lens and use 30-80 more than < 40, then its a winner.<p>

The IS is a big plus too.

I do own a 10D. . and I am not jealous of the 17-85/EF-S. :)

 

I actually was hoping the 20D would be released at $1250 => as this would bode well for the 20D successor body to be priced even lower (which I would consider)

 

I do have a minor gripe with Canon regarding the last several lens they have released. They are: The 17-40/4L, 18-55/EF-S, 70-300/DO-IS, 28-350/L-IS, 17-85/EF-S and 10-22/EF-S.

 

Of these six lenses, only the 17-40/4L and 18-55/EF-S are what I would consider "reasonably priced" for what you get (although, it is too soon to tell with the 10-22/EF-S).

 

I do express some disappointment that of these six lenses, only the 17-40/4L held any real interest to me (and I bought it!). What I really want is an optically top notch mid range zoom in the $600-$800 range (such as a 24-70/4L with or without IS) and an optically top notch 300+/IS telephoto zoom in the $1200 range (basically, a 100-400/L-IS that is not a push-pull).

 

The 17-85/EF-S and the 70-300/DO-IS fit the focal length range and price requirements, but flat out do not meet what I want optically.

 

******

 

Probably just as well . . .I have spent more than enough on glass already. .. .and I just got a new slave flash from B&H today (happy happy, joy joy! => next on the list is probably a ST-E2)