17-85 EF-S

[kev_400d]

Hi,

 

This is my first post so apologies if it's in the wrong place...

 

I'm looking at buying my first "proper" camera.

 

I've decided on the 400D (Rebel XTi to those over the pond).

 

But am being indecisive on lenses.

 

Was going to get a Mega zoom Sigma 28-300 but online research told me this

wasn't a good idea.

 

Now I'm looking at getting

17-85 EF-S and the 50/1.8

and saving for the 70-200 F4L

 

My question is:

 

Is the 17-85 EF-S any good?

 

I want to do a range of Landscape / Portrait / Event photography.

 

Also, is there a cheap / good prime that I could use for wildlife / candid

shots until I can save the ?400 that the L Zoom?

 

Any advice would be very much appreciated.

[david_shaffer]

I have the 17-85. Given the range and IS, you can't beat it for versatility. It has a nice, solid feel -- a little nose-heavy on my DReb, but nothing to worry about. I find image quality more than satisfactory, though I'm no expert. It does a fine portrait, IMO, but for shallow depth of field a logical next purchase would be a fast prime -- the 50 1.4 or 1.8. If you're interested in wildlife, I'd say you'd be better off with the 70-300IS than with the 70-200. (And the 100-400 -- or just the plain old 400 5.6 -- would be better still. Critters are always farther away than you'd like.) "Is there a cheap / good prime that I could use for wildlife / candid shots until I can save" for the zoom? Probably not.

[gdanmitchell]

<p>I had the EFS 17-85mm for a year or so, and I ended up feeling that it had it pluses

and minuses. For some people it can be exactly the right lens, for others perhaps not.

 

<p>Pluses:

 

<ul>

<li>Relatively inexpensive.</li>

<li>17-85mm is a very useful focal length range for many photographers - it can be an

"only lens" solution for many.</li>

<li>Image stabilization lets you shoot without a tripod in lower light conditions than you

might expect as long as subject motion is not an issue.

<li>With care and selection of optimum aperture and focal length you can get pretty sharp

results.</li>

<li>Build quality is OK.</li>

<li>Small and lightweight for its capabilities.</li>

</ul>

 

<p>Minuses</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Worse than average pincushion and barrel distortion.</li>

<li>More than average corner softness and fall-off ("vignetting"), particular at extremes of

aperture/focal length.</li>

<li>Sharpness is decent but not stellar.</li>

<li>f/5.6 aperture at long end can limit low light use, even with IS.</li>

</ul>

 

<p>On balance...

 

<p>If you won't make prints larger than letter size (or if you only post electronic

versions), if the pincushion/barrel distortion issues are less significant (you don't shoot

architecture, for example), you won't do a lot of low light work... it can be a fine choice.

I've seen good work done with the lens.</p>

 

<p>If you imagine it to be a "professional" lens you may be happy at first but I think there

is a decent chance that you'll eventually end up a bit frustrated by this lens.</p>

 

<p>It <i>can</i> be a good starter lens - letting you cover a fair amount of ground

while you save up money to buy better lenses later. That's not a bad approach, in which

case you could simply sell it once you are ready to move to more specialized lenses.

 

<p>If you decide to get a 50mm prime, be sure to ask yourself why you are selecting this

focal length. It is not a "normal" lens on this crop sensor camera; rather, it is a short

telephoto lens, sometimes described as a "portrait lens." You may or may not actually

need such a lens at first.

 

<p>The 70-200mm f4 L is one of Canon's best bargains - and excellent, top quality piece

of glass at a very good price. In addition, on your crop sensor camera it actually does have

a fairly narrow angle of view, being equivalent to shooting a 320mm lens on 35mm/full

frame. (It has much higher build and optical quality than the EFS 17-85.)

[bob_osullivan]

Also, it has worse than average chromatic abberations (purple line between dark and light areas). But you can fix that in photoshop after the fact if you dont' mind spending the time. If you are eventually going to get a tele zoom and you are currently getting a 50 1.8 then you could opt for any of these three. 17-85, Sigma 17-70 no IS but excellent image quality, or 17-40L (no IS, best image quallity) The sigma is the cheapest at about $250. The others about $500 I think.

[bueh]

I too had the EF-S 17-85mm and sold it again after a couple of months. For me it was just too "nose-heavy" (as David put it) and together with a Speedlite flash this combination gave me quite some hand pains after a while shooting and carrying the camera. It also is very intimidating on unprepared subjects, so dramatic wide angle close-ups are hardly possible (for event photography). While sharpness- and distortion-wise I am not very critical, I found the lack of a small depth-of-field and the rendering of out-of-focus areas not that hot. I settled for a classic fast prime lens combination (20mm, 50mm, 100mm) and I think your 50mm will be a step in the right direction. Keep an eye out for a bargain 200mm f/2.8 prime if you want a longer reach -- the 70-200mm zooms are great lenses, but look and feel like a cannon (no pun intended) and are far from inconspicuous

[peter_rowe]

Kevin,

Responses to questions about the Canon 17-85mm are always mixed, a bit unfairly I think. Most that have it rate it very highly. I have the Canon 17-85mm, the 50mm 1.8 and the 70-200mm F4 (also have the Canon 10-22mm). The 17-85mm is by far the most useful of the bunch and I end up using it for most of my shots. On trips overseas, which I do quite a bit, this is now the only lens I carry. I think it's unfair to call this a "starter" lens. If you get to a point where your photography skills are being limited by this lens then you are a very good photographer indeed. It's a great lens, it is as sharp as my Canon 70-200mm F4 at centre, and the IS is really magic. The best part though is the range, on a crop camera like the Rebel, the 17-85mm is the equivalent of a 28-135mm on a full frame. This is not an accident. This range is really useful as the 17mm is wide yet the 85mm is long enough for most shots. I think another significant advantage of this lens is that it has been specifically designed for the Canon 1.6x crop cameras and so it works very well with them. I find far less focusing problems with the 17-85mm than any other lens I have (another reason for using it often). I get literally 100% keepers. The 50mm 1.8 is not great for this as the focus is not reliable, even the 70-200mm doesn't nail it as often. All in all I think it is extremely well integrated with the 1.6x camera and just plain works well every time. Yes, it has some distortion at the short end but most software now eliminates that with a click, and you won't notice it on most shots. It also has some CA but that can easily be removed too. It is also an EF-S lens which menas that it will not work on a fullframe camera like the Canon 5D so if you plan on upgarding in the near future that might. On the plus side it has full time manual focusing, a non-rotating front, and is relatively small and light weight. I think that if you need a very versatile lens that just plain works every time then this is a great lens for you. On the other hand, if you appreciate the sometimes very slight of any extra sharpness an "L' lens can bring (L lens are more about better build, more consistent sharpness though the focal range, better edge performance..) then perhaps this is not the lens for you. As you search through other postings for example you will find a lot of disappointed people who moved from the 17-83mm to the 17-40 "L" as they run into a range problme and sharpness is usually the quality of a lones noticed most.

 

Hope this help, and good luck!

[gdanmitchell]

I did own the lens for about a year and used it on an XT. I agree that it covers a very useful focal length range. I also agree that it is a fine lens

for certain uses - perhaps for many uses.

 

You can somewhat compensate for the pincushion/barrel distortion if you have photoshop, and you can also somewhat compensate for fall-off

(though potentially at the expense of some dynamic range) but software won't fix the corner softness of the 17-85mm EFS.

 

I'm very surprised to hear a suggestion that the 70-200mm L is inferior to the 17-85mm in focus speed and accuracy. My 70-200 is a very

sharp lens and focuses quickly and accurately. Most reviewers regard it as one of the sharpest (if not _the_ sharpest) of Canon's L tele zooms.

 

The OP mentioned an interest in landscape photography. In general, great sharpness all across the frame is more important in landscape

photography than perhaps in other genres. While I did get some landscape shots with this lens that could be printed (with care) on 13 x 19

paper, more often the images did not hold up well enough even in the center at this large size. The difference between this lens and the 17-40

L or the 24-105 L is significant in prints of this size. To be specific, the shortcomings of the lens for landscape photography, in particular,

were a big reason that I replaced it after a year.

 

That said, if you don't intent to print larger than letter size on a regular basis you may not notice the difference much if at all. The lens

certainly is sharp enough to produce excellent images for web display on a computer monitor.

[zigzag]

Kevin, I have the 10-22mm, 17-85, 70-200mm f/4 and just this week bought the 50mm f/1.8 primarily for use in low light. There is no doubt in my mind that the 70-200mm f/4L is extremely sharp compared to the 17-85 (such that I often use it at the 70mm end in preference to the 17-85mm - but then its more prone to shake which means I have to user higher ISO handheld, ...). The 17-85mm served me very well as a beginner (the IS often compensates for the lack of lens speed) and I have used it extensively as a general purpose lens. From my combination given I have suffered from not having a lens that could go below f/4 in average light conditions (the 17-85 is f/5.6 at the long end). I am a big fan of the 70-200mm lens (but f/4 and apart from its whiteness which can be a bonus or a burden.)

 

I suppose what I'm saying is that the 17-85mm will serve you well in many situations but if I were buying again I would skip to the 24-105L (more money though.). In that I am agreeing with Dan above.

[mars c]

"I've decided on the 400D (Rebel XTi to those over the pond). "

 

What pond? An Ocean , maybe.

 

I never own the 17-85, I'm sure its good, But if I were in your shoes, I'd also be looking at the new Sigma 18-200 OS.

[andy_witkowski]

what you'll notice at first is due to the slow max aperture, the view finder is dark, esp at 85mm....

 

maybe spend a bit more and get 2 lenses

 

17-55 f 2.8 is usm and 70-200 L f4 usm

 

and maybe a 50 1.8 will do you well for portraits, and the effective long reach of the 70-200 will get you close to wildlife....

[george_brock]

Hi, like Kevin I'm trying to come to grips with dslr photography. I have a 350D which came with the 18-55mm lens. I've been reasonably satisfied with it but would like to get a lens that will give me sharper photos. The more I read the more confused I get! I was thinking about the EFS 17-85 f4 IS USM or the EFS 28-135 f3.5 IS USM. I'm mainly interested in landscape and the occasional portrait, the 24-105L which I think would be wonderful is out of my price range. I've also looked at the EFS 60mm 2.8 USM as a fixed focal length lens - HELP! Will someone out there give me some advice - a knowledgeable photgrapher I'm not, I just love taking photos, doesn't matter of what, just anything that catches my eye.

[steve_brown13]

After evaluating a 17-85 for use as the only lens on my 20D I decided that the image quality was just not good enough and went for the 10-22 wide-angle and a 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II instead.

 

The 10-22 is great for big landscapes, architecture and interiors, and the 28-105 is an excellent walkaround lens for just about everything else. On a 3 week trip to Argentina last year I found that I very rarely had to change lenses as most situations tended to be suited to either one lens or the other. On the few occasions I had to change, the hassle was more than outweighed by a) the better quality of both the lenses than the 18-75 and b) the extra reach at the wide and telephoto ends of whichever lens I was using.

 

Admittedly, the 10-22 alone is about the same price as the 17-85, so the cost of the 28-105 is an extra, but well worth it IMHO as the 10-22 is an amazing lens and the 28-105 is considerably better than the tele-end of the 17-85 and not expensive anyway.

[george_brock]

Thank's for your reply Steve - guess it's back to the drawing board for me lol!

[kev_400d]

Hi all,

 

Thanks for the responses so far.

 

I still can't make up my mind!

 

I'm now thinking of stretching my budget and going for the 24-105 F4L which should be good for 99% of my shots. Is it worth the extra cash? Will an amateur such as me be able to realize the benefits?

 

I can then save up for a Sigma 10-20 for landscapes. Is this any good?

 

I have a friend/neighbor who's a semi pro photographer for a premiership team who has offered loan of his gear (he has a range of spectacular longer L lenses as you can imagine) so if I need something long for a particular purpose... until I can afford a 70-200 F4L of my own.

 

How does this plan sound or would I be better off saving my money and going for ther 17-85?

[nicholette]

Kevin and George,

 

I have the 17-85, and I use it for the majority of my photos. I started with the rebel xt and upgraded to the 30d just 4 months later. In my opinion, my pictures with the 30d and 17-85 are far superior to any I took with the rebel, even when I used the 17-85. There is some distortion. You can use that to your advantage by carefully selecting you angles, or you can correct it easily on the computer. Either way, the color and sharpness I get with the 30d/17-85 combo is superior to most other camera/lens combos. I have used a 5d, 85mm 1.2L, 70-200L, and the 14 2.8L extensively. The 85 1.2L is my favorite lens to use, but it is difficult and not usable for the majority of the shots I take. Overall, the 17-85 is a fantastic lens for just about any and all shots, and very easy to carry and use. I am glad I started out with an inferior 18-55 (kit for the rebel) lens because now I appreciate the capabilities of the 17-85.

That lens is made for certain cameras, but even if you upgrade to a 5d, I don't think you'll regret it--they retain their value pretty well if you take care of it. The 30d is the best fit for this lens, so for those who don't like the 17-85 and don't mention the camera they used, maybe they should take that into consideration first. I used the 14mm fixed on a rebel, and even though I like some of the pics, it's definitely not a good match for the smaller sensor. It's fantastic on the 5d however. It's more important to consider how the lens you get works with the camera you have and what you're expecting out of it. (I shoot architecture, portraits, wildlife, and anything else I like... the 17-85 is the best lens I use)