is the 17-35L really that "bad?"

<p>i'm looking for a standard zoom for my crop DSLR (40D).</p>

<p>i tried a 17-85 IS yesterday but it popped up the dreaded Error 01 and had to return it. for this reason i don't want to try the 17-55 IS either because it seems to have the same design flaw.</p>

<p>the 15-85 IS is too expensive (pricier than the 17-40L)</p>

<p>the tammy 17-50 is cheap and cheerful but with the reported mis-focusing problems, i don't want to risk it.</p>

<p>so am thinking about the 16-35L Mk I or the old 17-35L (the 16-35 II is too much dough for me). used 16-35's are going for around $1000 while there's a used 17-35 going for $650. obviously the 17-35 is quite tempting but everyone gives it a bad rap.</p>

<p>so.. is the 17-35 really that bad?</p>

<p>What design flaw? 17-85 IS and 17-55 IS work fine on my 40D and they work fine of most other people's 40Ds.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sure it's not a problem with your 40D? I have both a 17-85 IS USM and 17-55 2.8 IS USM in our family and they have travelled the earth for several years and never, not once, suffered an Error 01 or any other error on the 40D, 50D and 7D that used them.</p>

<p>The EF-S 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS USM is in your budget and is as sharp as the 17-55 and built slightly better. The main gotcha is the slow aperture but if you thought the 17-85 was fast enough no problem.</p>

<p>The old 17-35 2.8L was the best in its class until the 17-40L upstaged it in review comparisons. Personally I think the 17-35L is a great optic for FF but the range is really yawn on APS-C.</p>

<p>Bob, try googling "17-85 Error 01" and be prepared for a torrent.</p>

<p>Apparently the 17-85, 17-55, 24-105, and early 70-200/2.8IS have a design flaw in the way the ribbon cable for the EMD is routed.</p>

<p>On the 17-85 I got, the EMD would not stop down at focal lengths between 17mm and 24mm. At 35mm and above it was OK. This is because the ribbon cable is bent at such an angle when the lens is at the short end of its range, that the traces eventually break or crack.</p>

<p>Again, not all 17-85 (or 17-55) have it, but when buying used one has to plan for the worst. Heck the 17-85 I got was less than 2 years old and had this problem.</p>

<p>You can actually buy a new ribbon cable for $4 or an entire EMD assembly with cable for $22, but cracking open the 17-85 is beyond my skill (there are tons of 17-85 disassembly howto videos and web sites online.. which I think is a testament to the reliability problem of this lens). I understand Canon will repair it for under $100 (replace the cable/EMD).</p>

<p>I also found this web page which asserted that the 17-55 has the highest return rate for Canon lens rentals at 1.5% also due to this issue.</p>

<p>The 17-35 is fine, especially on a crop body, the weak spot was the corners and distortion and they are both dramatically reduced when used on a crop camera. Although the two 16-35's are upgrades the 17-35 was a great lens in its time, even for FF film use. If the range is long enough, as Puppy says 17-35 is not a long range, then it is a good way to get into the f2.8 lenses. I wouldn't take one over an EF-s 17-55 IS though, but understand if you wanted to.</p>

<p>Funnily enough (actually not funny at all) I've had two lenses fail within the last 3 weeks due to error 01. My EF 24-105 L on a 5DII and an EF-S 17-85 on a 7D and a 40D. Same problem - aperture blades won't stop down due to faulty ribbon cables. Googling soon revealed mine wasn't an isolated problem and there abounds a number of videos and "how tos" on the disassembly and repair of the 17-85 in particular.</p>

<p>A phone call to Canon was greeted with the reply "we don't give estimates over the phone - you will need to send the lens to us (and pay the quote fee) before we can give an estimate". A third party repairer has quoted $420 + postage to repair both lenses. </p>

<p>EBay has lots of Chinese-made aperture blade ribbon cables available for both these lenses, as well as for the 18-55 kit lens. The kit lens one may expect, but not the L. I'm not impressed, Canon.</p>

<p>Oh, and I also have an EF-S 17-55 f/2.8...</p>

<p>So the trusty EF 28-135 IS is now doing duty on my 5DII, I'm glad I didn't sell it.</p>

<p>Good luck with your decision.</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>

<p>Bob, that's exactly the point. The 17-85 and 17-55 both have this ribbon cable problem and you just (sadly) confirmed it.</p>

<p>Canon here in Singapore charges anywhere from $75 (for EMD replacement, they call it Power Diaphragm) to $200 (to replace both the EMD and the IS gyro) on the 17-85. Quite a bit lower than your third-party quote.</p>

<p>The entire Power Diaphragm can be obtained for $22, OEM part (not Chinese ribbon cable).</p>

<p>Scott,<br>

according to this review of the 17-35<br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/176-canon-ef-17-35mm-f28-usm-l-lab-test-report--review?start=1">http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/176-canon-ef-17-35mm-f28-usm-l-lab-test-report--review?start=1</a></p>

<p>even on APS-C the corners at f/2.8 are unusable at 17mm. And this is on a 350D! 8 megapixels only.</p>

<p>In my opinion, the 16-35mm, 17-40mm and the 17-35mm are wide-angle zooms and too short to be considered standard zooms even on cropped bodies, although many people use them as such. </p>

<p>Even the 17-55 is a little too short IMHO. I don't own a 17-55mm, but I have used them on the job with a 40D for years without any issues. The 15-85mm would be ideal for a standard zoom, because of the range, but the f5.6 aperture is a little limiting for what you are paying. </p>

<p>The 17-35mm and the 16-35mm which replaced it, would give you a range of 27-56mm, unless you like changing lenses this can become a major inconvenience. Making things worse, the 17-35mm only excels around the 20-35mm range which makes it even more limiting. </p>

<p>I just recently purchased a used 16-35mm Mk 1 for my FF camera. So far, it does not seem to suffer from the limitations of the 17-35. It is basically sharp across the entire focal length, but wide open(f2.8), it does show some signs of softness. If you want a real standard zoom while avoiding the problems you mentioned with the 17-55 an 18-85, then maybe you should try looking into what Tamron, or Sigma has to offer.</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>Being kind of cheap, I decided to get the 17-40L. Actually I got it a couple hours ago and already have it (just trolled the local forums where a dozen L lenses are on sale at any given time, hopped on the subway and got the lens).</p>

<p>It is kind of short at the long end, yes, but I was using a Pentax 16-45 as my walk-around lens for years. This lens is very similar, so it's something I can live with.</p>

<p>I did not consider the Tamron 17-50 (even though one was offered to me yesterday for half the price of the 17-40) because (1) there are many reported AF issues, and buying used, you don't have the luxury of a long return policy and warranty; (2) it's not ring USM. I switched from Pentax to get ring USM, so I'm not gonna buy any lenses that don't have it.</p>

<p>Someone was also selling a 17-35L for less than the 17-40L but it is pretty old, and I understand Canon doesn't service those anymore. Wasn't too comfortable with that, I can survive with f/4 (the Pentax 16-45 was also a constant f/4).</p>

<p>Canon still services the 17-35 and its a fine lens. Too many people spend too much time staring at reviews. I rented the 17-40 and ended up buying the 17-35 instead. I just needed the extra speed. It's the 20-35 L that canon doesn't service any more because it is pre USM. </p>

<p>Orlando,</p>

<p>Had I known f4 was an option I would have said the 17-40 is a better lens. Having said that I just read your linked article and don't get the same conclusion that you do, yes there are better lenses nowadays, but for cheap Canon f2.8 USM ultrawides, particularly after ruing out the lenses you have, the 17-35 is pretty good.Even the tester says <em>"I was actually quite fond of the performance of the Canon EF 17-35mm f/2.8 USM L" </em>hardly the <em>"even on APS-C the corners at f/2.8 are unusable at 17mm"</em> you say, besides, now all these images are shot on digital, distortion, and vignetting are the easiest thing in the world to correct, even extreme distortion, I have de-fished several 15mm fish-eye images to rectilinear.</p>

<p>Some of the most dramatic and heart wrenching images I have ever seen were taken with a 17-35 and a D30 (not a 30D), I was at the <a href="http://hereisnewyork.org/index2.asp">Here Is New York</a> exhibition in Sept 2002 in New York and saw <a href="http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/biggart_intro.htm">Bill Biggart's </a>final images. They were printed quite large and the images were certainly not badly distorted.</p>

<p>The number of megapixels has no effect on distortion or vignetting, <em>"And this is on a 350D! 8 megapixels only."</em>, in fact higher MP cameras are better as the corrections are just as easy and affect each pixel less.</p>

<p>Anyway, very glad you got a 17-40, you should be more than happy with it. The extra 5mm on the long end certainly makes it more useful especially as you are used to the f4.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

<p>Hi Scott,</p>

<p>The photozone review says</p>

<p>"The worst spot is clearly the 17mm setting especially towards the extreme borders. Normally the "extreme border" performance is not provided for full frame lenses but the exception was necessary here to point out the weakness of this lens. <strong>The extreme borders @ 17mm are smeared at f/2.8 which very little detail left</strong>. Stopping down helps to lift the resolution figures but the extreme borders remain somewhat substandard."</p>

<p>My interpretation of that is that the extreme corners are not sharp unless stopped down. Granted we normally care about sharp extreme corners when doing landscapes (at which you'd be at f/8 so not an issue). The thing about the locally available used 17-35L is that it was four years old. I didn't feel too comfortable with that. </p>

<p>Orlando sorry if this comes off in the wrong way but it seems you want a really really nice lens at a very cheap price. You pay for what you get. Granted their are errors here and there with lenses but your complaining about all these lenses in your price range that don't work for you. Save up and get something that you will be happy with instead of spending money on stuff your not 100% satisfied with. Especially if you don't need the lens right away save up for the gear you want. Again this is not an attack but just some advice that I've learned over the years.</p>

<p>Joshua, everyone has to work to a budget and everyone wants the best. It's human nature.</p>

<p>For me, it's not so much the saving up, but I simply will not spend more than $X on a lens. Call it my "hobby limitation philosophy." I recognize that this being only one of my hobbies, the cost/benefit ratio has to be kept under control, and for me $800 for a lens is my threshold of comfort.</p>

<p>For the same reason, I will not buy either of the 70-200/2.8 or even the 70-200/4 L IS, because they lie outside my threshold of comfort. The used 17-35L was an outlier because it offered f/2.8 within my threshold of comfort. But, given the risk, it was not to be.</p>

<p>Congratulations on your 17-40mm f4, fantastic lens which some people claim is a tad sharper than the 16-35mm and probably more than a tad sharper than the 17-35mm. Since this lens was buillt for FF bodies as are all 'L' series lenses, the viewfinder on your 40D will probably block the zoom scale a bit, being that it(zoom scale) fits closer to the body than on EF-S lenses. Not a deal breaker, just thought I let you know. </p>

<p>Thanks Harry. I pretty much said the same thing to my wife because she said I should get the 16-35L Mk I (which is far more reasonably priced than the 16-35 II, but still a good $300 over the 17-40L).</p>

<p>I actually also had a brainstorm. For those rare occasions where I want really, really wide, I can resurrect my ancient EOS 50 film camera! (sure beats buying a 5D Mk II or whenever Canon decides to release an Mk III).</p>

<p>Guess I'm lucky. I've had the 17-85 since it was released and I've had no problems with it.</p>

<p>Thanks for the though. It may come in useful one day.</p>

<p>You do have to read internet complaints with the realization that only those with a problem ever complain. Even if a fault is widely reported, it's hard to say if it's showing up in 1%, 10% or 50% of all lenses. I suspect it's probably closer to 1% than 50% or even 10%. Of coure that's not a lot of comfort if you are in that 1%. Canon have sold an awful lot of 17-85 lenses.</p>

<p>Yes, why not the 17-40L? It has barrel distortion out the yang on a full frame or even the 1D 1.3 crop. But it is a good lens, especially on the 1.6 crop and you can get one for 500 or 600 new.</p>

 

<p>Bob, according to camerarentals.com the figure is 1.5% for the 17-55.</p>

<p>What is amazing is that all the reports (and my experience!) on the 17-85 are exactly the same -- won't stop down, error 01 below 35mm, but above 35mm is perfect. And yes, I got paranoid because I was in the 1.5%. Can't help but think the seller was aware of the issue and was trying to unload it.</p>

<p>I don't know how 1.5% is compared to other lenses. It really depends on sample size and how long the statistics have been gathered plus what period the statistics cover. It may depend on when the lens was made. Manufacturers often quietly modify internal designs without making any announcements. They don't want lenses sent back for warranty repair any more than customers want lenses that develop problems.</p>

 

<p>One of my younger brothers is a CSI (crime scene investigator) and one of his jobs is photographing crime scenes. Each member of the 15-man squad was issued with 2 x 40Ds, one with the 17-85 lens and the other with a 50mm compact macro. Of the squad members most (10 or so) had major problems with their 17-85s - faulty zoom (lens was locked at a given focal length) and faulty aperture ribbon cables. The kits have just been upgraded to new 60Ds with new 17-85s. They kept the compact macros.</p>

<p>I love the versatility of the 17-85 on my 400D as a casual shooter and have decided to get mine repaired. If it plays up again I'll turn it into a coffee mug.</p>

<p>By the way, I have the 17-40L which I use on my 5DII. Its a great lens. It may eventually become the normal zoom on my crop bodies if the EF-S lenses cause more trouble.</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>

<p>If you listen to every bad rumor out there, then you'll never buy a lens. Every lens on the market has some "flaw" that someone has claimed has affected their photography. You get what you pay for; if people are consistently paying a price for a lens, then its probably worth that price. Just keep in mind that the price isn't necessarily directly proportional to IQ. For example, the 17-35mm f/2.8L and the 17-40mm f/4L go for roughly the same price, so you may sacrafice some quality for a faster lens in the 17-35mm, and sacrafice slowness for IQ in the 17-40mm; it just depends what features are more appealing and useful to you.</p>

<p>From memory, the lens failure stats for camerarentals showed the 17-55 IS as one of the worst a couple of years ago. However the following year the site noted that the lens was now no worse than any other, and that Canon must have updated something in its design. They have high turnover at this site so they notice updates like that happening from year to year.</p>

<p>For the record my 17-35/2.8L was terrible on my 60D. At 17mm the centre was ok, but the corners weren't just bad, they were <em>smeared.</em> The smeared corners only improved slightly when stopped down. The 17-40 I bought to replace it was much better, as was the 17-55. (I had trouble making my mind up...).</p>

<p>Ben, thanks for validating my decision not to get the 17-35 :-)</p>

<p>I don't think Canon has ever updated the 17-85 though, the one I got was ~1.5 years old (e.g. made in mid-2009) and had the problem. I would understand that they would update the world-beating 17-55 but the 17-85 just fell through the cracks. Even more so now that there's the 15-85. And I did like the 17-85 (cheap and cheerful, ring USM, IS). The 15-85 is too spendy for a variable-speed zoom.</p>