17-85 in theory

<p>Given recent posts about the EF-S 17-85 IS, I was wondering if it would be possible for Canon to rework the 17-85 in such a way that it would be the equal of the EF-S 17-55 IS? I know nothing about the inner workings of lens design, so I'm asking the question. Could Canon make the EF-S 17-85 IS a constant f/ 2.8 with IQ to equal the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS?</p>

<p>Sure they could. It's all about price and available market for such a lens. They already have a 24-70 f2.8 (no IS) and a 24-105 f4 with IS, and a 70-200 f2.8 with IS. Canon's site lists them at about 1350.00, 1250.00, and 2000.00 USD respectively. I could only guess where such a lens would fall, but you get the idea.</p>

<p>If they made an optically superb 17-85/2.8 IS, their optically superb 17-55/2.8 IS would loose it's market. If Canon went that way, it would be as a replacement for the 17-55/2.8 IS, not the 17-85/3.5-4.5 IS. </p>

<p>I think it's more likely that they'll beef up the 17-85 a bit optically, but keep it a 3-5-4.5, which should allow them to sell it for a lot cheaper than a 2.8 lens, and also keep it smaller and lighter - ie keep it in the market nitch the 17-85/3.5-4.5 IS is currently filling. As it is, I like my 17-85/3.5-4.5 IS a lot, but I probably wouldn't buy one if I didn't have it already, because the 18-55 IS is so good that the price difference isn't really justified. The main problem Canon might be having with the 17-85/3.5-4.5 IS - if there is a problem at all - is that they made the kit lens too good. People who want better optics and 2.8, and don't mind the higher price plus extra size and weight already have the 17-55/2.8 IS. A mid range zoom that's cheap, tiny, 2.8, and super sharp is as elusive as a perpetuum mobile ;-)</p>

<p>Of course they could, but that's not the point. The 17-85 is a fairly low cost general purpose zoom. That's it's role in life.<br>

At $1500 - $2500 for an f2.8 version, it wouldn't be so popular!</p>

 

<p>While it certainly would be possible to make a constant f/2.8 EFS 17-85mm lens, a) Canon won't ever do that, b) it most certainly would not be a reworking of the current lens - it would have to be a completely different lens, c) it would be really big, d) it would be very, very expensive.</p>

<p>It would be useful to make such a lens a constant f/4 (like the f/4 L zooms) but given that the market for a 17-85 all-in-one lens is typically (with, no doubt, a few exceptions) among high end shooters there would be little reason for Canon to do this.</p>

<p>The 17-85 is what it is, can Canon has bigger fish to fry that updating it.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Look at the price of the 17-55mm with constant f2.8. Now consider a similar lens, still maintaining constant f2.8 but with 85mm at the long end. It would be a heavy and expensive beast, not in the same league as the current 17-85.</p>

<p>If would be a friggen 2 grand bazooka! </p>

<p>As long as we’re dreaming, how ’bout a sharp-as-a-tack distortion-free full-frame 15-500 f/1.2L tilt / shift lens that

weighs no more than two pounds and costs less than $1000? Now <em>that</em> would be

sweet — especially if I could get a pony with it, too!</p>

 

<p>Anybody at Canon reading this?</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>It is not automatic as in easy. On full frame side, Tamron tried to do that with their 28-105/2.8. They ended up with a lens which between 28-75mm, so so good but not near as good as their 28-75/2.8. Strike One! That lens also end up not so good near 90-105mm until stop down pass f4. Strike Two! Worst, that lens feel like it is one pound heavier then the 28-75/2.8. Strike Three! At the end, even the die hard wedding folks who could sell one of their kidney for a len like this, gave it up :-) Bless Tamron for trying but after that, seems like no one else follow. </p>

<p>Despite the nay-saying (or was it neigh-saying? no wrong end...*), I'd bet that Canon will actually redo the 17-85mm IS at some point in the not-unimaginably distant future. The result will probably be an f/4 IS lens, might be a little longer on the long end. Its price in current dollars will be something like $200 more than the present 17-85mm. Barrel and pincushion distortion and CA will be substantially reduced.</p>

<p>First, Canon have never worried particularly about overlap, as a quick review of their lens offerings will show. Let's see, how many 70 something to 200-300mm something lenses do you think the market will support? There are currently or recently something like 10 lenses that cross that range, most of them firmly <em>in</em> the range.<br /> Secondly, they are working across the field, cleaning up older designs. The new 16-35mm lens, for example. The new TS-E 24mm, for another. I might also add, the 18-55mm kit lens, too.</p>

<p>Clearly, Canon, at least, has made some major breakthroughs in the last couple of years precisely in the areas that are the weaknesses of the existing 17-85mm. They will either abandon the lens altogether and bring out something in the same range that is improved† or they will fix the lens's problems.</p>

<p>____<br /> * jes' jokin' folks<br /> † as in "Shakespeare's plays were not written by Shakespeare, but by another man with the same name."</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'd bet that Canon will actually redo the 17-85mm IS at some point in the not-unimaginably distant future. The result will probably be an f/4 IS lens, might be a little longer on the long end. Its price in current dollars will be something like $200 more than the present 17-85mm. Barrel and pincushion distortion and CA will be substantially reduced.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>That sounds a bit like a 24-105L for the crop factor user. Thinking about it, if Canon could offer a lens that does for APS-C users what the 24-105L does for FF users, I'd buy one, and I think I wouldn't be the only one. At the moment the 17-85 is the closest lens to fit that bill, and while a nice lens, compared to the 24-105L it leaves quite a bit to be desired. Unfortauntely the 24-105L is not $200 more than the 17-85, but $700...</p>

<p>Frank, my thoughts exactly... Although, as an EF-S lens they probably won't quite make it to L standard, or call it an L.</p>

<p>Wouldn't hold my breath... :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Although, as an EF-S lens they probably won't quite make it to L standard, or call it an L.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are a few EFs lenses that IMHO are of L standard even though they didn't get the label - the 10-22 is one that I own, and I couldn't care less if it's called L or not. In fact, if it was called L, it would probably cost more, so I'd rather Canon kept the price and not call it L ;-)</p>

<p>Come to think of it, there are EF lenses too where one wonders why they aren't designated L. The EF 100/2.8 macro comes to mind. And while we are busy compiling a wish list for Canon, a EF 100/2.8 IS macro would be at the top of mine - L or no-L, I don't care!</p>

<p>I would prefer Canon to do other things to the 17-85 than making it f/2.8. Such as correcting some of that horrible distortion at the wide end. And while they're at it, why not make it a 15-85 or even 15-70 with variable aperture? It can be done and still be reasonably priced. I, for one, envy the Nikon people their 16-85 even though it's slow at the long end.</p>