Canon 17-85mm IS : I want a divorce

[zigzag]

A year ago she was so beautiful, she zoomed, she spread, she cut a fine edge.

We were happy together - and then things started to go downhill. First came the

creamy, sleek 70-200mm f/4L, what a sharpie! Ok, she's a little less stable but

constant, reliable, needs an ISO boost but always delivers, needa a steady hand

on her rudder. The 17-85mm started being left behind for portraits, she was

dull, slow at the top end in a way that even her IS couldn't make up for. We

struggled along... but she spent more time at home while I gallivanted with the

creamy one.<br><br>

And next, the Canon 10-22mm, that cut the legs off the 17-85mm, she's sharp and

wide at the bottom end, sits fine on a tripod and takes it all in with less of

that nasty barrel distortion, she looks good at the beach, at romantic sunsets,

is nice to wake up with. Things surely couldn't get much worse for 'old kit

lens' as she started to be called. But then, they could...<br><br>

 

She's black, she's petite, she's sensitive, so sharp and fast. Yes, she's a bit

plastic but wow!, what bokeh! Yes, the 50mm, f/1.8 put the nail in the coffin.

The Canon 17-85mm sits at home now very often, there with a bag over her head,

'Miss Unreliable', the honeymoon is over, sure she gets a run on those

walkarounds but you know how it is when the magic is gone? That's it, dull,

flat, slow, last year's model. I can just FEEL CA looking at me out of that

bag. <br><br>

 

I've been looking around. As you shouldn't but you do. The uptown girl came

forward: Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, she's the one. Upmarket though and I can't

afford her, a bit on the heavy side too. What do I want? F/2.8, sharp, 24-70,

will fit in nicely if one day, perchance I get a 5D II - describes that lens

doesn't it? Don't want EF-S again, don't want the vignetting 24-105 f/4L, want

low light performance. IS would be very nice. So I look at the Tamron 17-50/2.8

Di-II, nice I think, a bit short but constant and fast the way I like them or

then again, there's the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM, more up market, but EF-S.

IS it really worth walking out on the old girl for these two? What's out there?

USM, do I really need that? It's gotta be one of these three? Seriously.

Let's not even mention those 'gotta have primes' (85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 and

maybe the 35mm), it's enough to think about the zoomies. <br><br>

 

So, I have two questions. <br><br>1. What do you think about these fast lenses

as an 'upgrade' from the 17-85mm for outdoors, walkaround, portraits, studio?<br>

 

2. They say it's unhealthy to personify your lenses and give them pet names.

Do you think Molly the 30D will feel threatened if I upgrade?

[zigzag]

One other thing: do you think it ever works to stick together because of the filters?

[rainer_t]

Glen ... that's the way how L-coholism starts ;-)

 

My personal choice was the Tamron 17-50/2.8 as a walkaround lens.

 

For portraits I prefer the Tamron 28-75/2.8 or the 50/1.4 + 85/1.8 pair.

[colinsouthern]

Whatever it takes to get the EF24-70 F1:2.8L USM, do it - have a scratch around the garage - sell a few things you don't need - get creative - she'll be all the more worth it!

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

L-coholic, and proud of it!

[PuppyDigs]

"...she spread..."

 

I'm not sure how that works with a consumer lens. Do tell?

[ronald_moravec1]

What do you expect from a consumer grade lens. Save for the 24/70L.

 

At some point you will leave Molly for a full figured model and you will have the lens to cover the format.

[dave chew]

My suspicion is if you get anything less than the 24-70 f/2.8, you will eventually be getting yet another divorce. That's how L-coholism works! However, I think it makes sense to wait until you decide on the next camera. Getting a FF sensor will certainly affect your "perfect" lens combination.

 

I deal with my L-coholism by strictly evaluating my photo situations. For me there are four, and each one requires a different lens combination (with a 5D):

 

1. Doing something with others (family) who have limited patience. No tripod and only one lens. Right now this is the 24-105f/4IS. Like you I am not thrilled with this lens, but it is more than fine for this application.

 

2. Doing something very specific, i.e. wildlife or close-up. Often only one lens like the 300f/4 or the 180f/3.5m.

 

3. Doing something active like skiing or mountaineering. 24f/2.8, 35f/2, 50f/2.5m and 70-200f/4IS.

 

4. Going out somewhere specifically for photography. 24TS, 35f/2, 50f/2.5m, 85f/1.8, 135f/2.

 

The point is, that great new lens needs to fit into your mix of situations and improve your results in that situation. I'd love to get the 24-70f/2.8 and/or the new 16-35f/2.8, but it is hard to point to a situation above where these lenses would help.

 

Hmmm, maybe the 35f/1.4...Hick!

[wayne_campbell]

Most guys would probably think a 40D is better than a 30D.

[steve santikarn]

I divorced both my 17-85 IS and my 70-300 IS last month, exchanged them for the 17-55 f2.8 IS and the 70-200 f4 IS. I sure miss the extra range and the lightness of the lenses that I got rid of, and now I am thinking of getting back my old sweethearts (especially for travels). Nothing beats the 17-85 for light weight one-lens-does-it-all travel lens.

[mars c]

I wonder what you two were doing at night.

 

But funny, I just bought a 17-85, I own a 24-105 , 70-300 , 10-22 and 50mm, the reason why I bought the lens is for versatility or range, the 17-55 2.8 IS wont do it for me, cause of the 55mm limit and the size, weight and cost.

[mars c]

"1. What do you think about these fast lenses as an 'upgrade' from the 17-85mm for outdoors, walkaround, portraits, studio?"

 

Good for studio and portraits, But heavy, overkill and lacking range for walking around, compared to the 17-85.

 

I'm not opposing your decision to buy an L lens, But you could make the 17-85 look like an L lens by increasing the color saturation in the camera. If you can keep all the lens you buy without selling any , the better, cause you might need the ones you would have sold someday. Each lens have their own use, you know.

[stillbound]

Once you go L...well you know the rest.

 

As for the "eventual 5d II" i would not hold my breath. There has been rumbling (loud rumbling) that if it comes at all it won't come till next oct. and at that time it will be 3500...Canon will not cut the sales of the 1Ds MkIII with a 16 - 18 megapixel FF camera very soon...especially as long as nikon continues to shoot themselves in the foot by releasing a pro model FF with only 12 mp...

[johnson_d.]

I wasn't able to get through all the silly stuff but, from what I was able to pick up, it sounds like the 17-85 would fit the bill.

[mendel_leisk]

It is a 30D (or other 1.6 crop) you're currently using? The 17-85 is close to a marriage made in heaven on the 1.6 crops. Yes it has shortcomings, the corners at the wide end start to break up through a combo of CA and softness, but still a very decent lens with a great range.

 

One thing that sticks in my mind about the 17-85 is the extremely tenacious IS. I have several other lens with IS, that I use on a 5D. The 17-85's IS just seems to *glue* the viewfinder rock steady, compared to most.

[JDMvW]

Such drama! Such angst! Despite all, here's another vote for the 17-85. It's very good lens with exactly the range needed for everyday photography with an APS-size sensor camera.

[j_smith6]

1) Tamron 17-55 is EF-s lens. It won't work on a 5D.

 

2) Did you hear how its autofocus work? It's really LOUD. 50/1.8 is very quiet in comparison to this one. If you buy a good copy of this lens then it's really good optically. Just like 17-40/4 L USM or sigma 17-70. If you can't afford canon f/2.8 17-xx USM lens then tamron is really good but loud.

 

3) Don't anthropomorphize lenses. They don't like it. :)

[j_smith6]

*it's tamron 17-50 NOT 55

[jimstrutz]

The 24-70 f/2.8L is tall, fat and has no bottom.

 

Makes for a nice mate if you were a camera though.

[grant g]

Funny.

 

I 'divorced' my 17-85 last year...no regrets as she only came out for a couple of weddings.

IS was great on her, but distortion at 17 and slow f/5.6 at 85mm made for less than

desirable bokeh for portraits. She was on the shelf for almost 2 years.

 

I've used the following on crop cameras and would put then in this order for utility and IQ:

17-55/2.8IS

24-105IS -nice on crop, no vignetting, not wide enough for main lens on crop.

24-70L - too short zoom range.

Sigma 18-50/2.8 older non-macro. has a warm color cast and slow, loud AF.

17-85IS distortion at 17mm and not enough bokeh at 85/5.6.

 

Good luck deciding on your new girl!

[peter_rowe]

So funny.

 

My experience however is the exact opposite - I kept my 17-85mm IS and sold my 70-200 F4 "L". My 17-85mm IS is sharper than my 10-22mm, I can't tell the difference between my 85mm F1.8 and the 17-85mm at 85mm.

 

It is so weird, I must have the best 17-85mm IS known to mankind or else all my other lens are faulty.

[zigzag]

Apologies for the 'silly stuff' - made a break from the 'I have strange spots on my photos' discussions. The discussion/advice is much appreciated - the 10-22mm range is a favourite for me for landscapes, I view the 70-200 f/4L as my sharpest lens and will use it in preference at its bottom end. The IS on the 17-85mm has done stirling work on many occassions but it could not stretch to a decent job indoors without flash over the range even with 'acceptable' high ISO. I can't afford /can't justify buy a range of lenses to cover all eventualities and have set a goal to be producing photographs that make the lens performance a significant limitation on what I can produce - not there yet - these lenses are all pretty good and technique/knowledge is often the primary falldown - it helps to push forward in all directions.

[stillbound]

to Peter...you must have the sharpest 17-85 ever if it is just as sharp as the 85 1.4 at 85. Even if it is...no IS in the world makes up for that loss of stops though

[mwaks]

Divorce is an ugly thing. It's best to sell the unwanted into slavery at the used dept. .........or just smash them with a hammer.

Anyway, I like my 17-85mm EF-S Lens. We will never part.

[peter_rowe]

to Joseph... I have the 85 F1.8. I did a test just this last weekend and there is little difference between my 17-85mm IS and my 85mm F1.8 at 85mm using compatible F stops. I hear you about the faster lens though - IS can't do everything but it sure is handy in some situations.

 

Kind regards.

[zigzag]

<i>It is so weird, I must have the best 17-85mm IS known to mankind or else all my other lens are faulty.</is>

 

Or my 17-85 is not the best. I will undertake some quantitative measurements where the other lenses overlap.