CANON EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

[sami_lahtinen]

Any strong opinions for and against of the lens CANON EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.

 

It will become to EOS 400D body as general purpose lens. I could get mint version for USD 300.

[bueh]

I didn't like it. Too heavy (especially front-heavy when wide and focused close), way too slow and overpriced for its optical perfomance (although $300 sound like a nice bargain).

<p>

The <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="Ultrasonic Motor">USM</abbr> and <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="Image Stabilization">IS</abbr> are excellent features, on the other hand.

[rainer_t]

The 17-85 is (or should I say "still is") an often and controversely discussed lens. I bought one even though I already had a Tamron 17-50/2.8 (which is optically better than the 17-85) and have not regretted it.

Besides the weaknesses and shortcomings that this lens certainly has, its a very versatile and useful general-purpose or one-lens-only solution. If this lens is really "way to slow" as Bueh B has put it, really depends on your needs. I use mine at f/8 most of the time and usually don't find it too slow. But on the other side, I wouldn't use this lens for portraits. If you compare this lens with the EFS 18-200 IS, you'll find that the 17-85 is the more solid construction (ring USM, non rotating frontlens).

 

I personally would recommend this lens as a general purpose lens, but I would also say "don't expect wonders from it". BTW ... 300$ sounds like a nice price to me, but before you buy, check prices for used 17-85s at B&H or KEH.

[david_williams10]

Well I have had one of these on a 40D for almost a year now and after a bit of a baptism of fire I am growing to like it .

 

The range is very useful (the only thing stopping me replacing it with a 24-105L if I'm honest) and the IS is very good

as well. Focusing with the ring USM is great.

 

Initially I fell into the "It's got rubbish IQ" camp, but I now realise that most of the poor early results I had were just

plain OOF as a result of relying on the autofocus at wide focal lengths.

 

Zooming in, locking focus (now using back button focus) and zooming out again has resulted in a much higher

keeper rate. And no I don't think there is anything wrong with my 40D focusing.

 

I just think there are certain situations (usually low contrast/poor light/no defined sharp edges under the focus point)

where the camera does not get what I consider to be a good lock on the focus point I have chosen and it seems to

focus closer to the camera than the point I have chosen. At 17mm this gives the impression of a focused image in

the viewfinder - the red square blinks - but it's not focused properly.

 

The IQ is not as good at the wide end, and stopping it down does not seem to make too much difference. Having

said that I have some nice A2 sized prints that I am very pleased with. Don't pixel peep too much of you want to be

happy with this lens - make prints. Above about 50mm IQ is much better.

 

Flare is OK, certainly no worse than any other wide range zooms I have used before.

 

So to sum up it's a great all purpose lens, learn to live with it's shortcomings and zoom in to focus at the wide end,

get the focus control onto the button on the rear of the camera.

 

HTH

 

David

[ed_v.]

What David said. I purchased mine refurbished for US$430, so you're price seems very good. I've been very happy with mine being that I don't enlarge beyond 8" x 10" or crop very radically. It is reasonably sharp. The only problems I've had is barrel distortion at the 17 mm end and some chromatic abberations, both of which can be fixed with software. FYI I have a Rebel XT/350D.

[g dan mitchell]

I owned one for about a year when I purchased my first digital SLR. My view of this lens is mixed - and it mostly comes

down to a question, I think, of what are your expectations from such a lens.

 

The good news: The 17-85mm focal length range is very useful for many cropped sensor DSLR photographers, in that it

covers the angle-of-view equivalent of the 28-135mm lenses that were so popular and useful on film SLRs. The

incorporation of image stabilization (IS) somewhat compensates for the relatively small maximum apertures. Its cost is

not prohibitive for the feature set it provides. Its build quality is OK, though not stellar. Its image quality is good enough

to produce consistent letter size and smaller prints and certainly fine for online posting.

 

The bad news: The large maximum aperture (f/5.6 at the long end) leaves you very few usable apertures once you

consider the effects of diffraction blur at apertures smaller than f/8. (Though if you limit yourself to very small prints and

online posting this may be a bit less significant.) The lens has known and for many users significant IQ issues: corner

softness, excessive vignetting at extremes of aperture and focal length, more than typical barrel/pincushion distortion,

more than typical chromatic aberration.

 

This could be a good lens for certain users, but it could also be a serious disappointment for others. If your intent is to

get one lens that you can leave on the camera, you want to save a bit of money over more expensive alternatives, you

won't make large prints, you can live with the limited aperture options... and you aren't thinking you are going to get an L

lens equivalent on the cheap.

 

Dan

[JDMvW]

Most of it's been said, but just to support the "we love it despite everything." It is simply the most handy lens available from Canon for the 15x22mm sensor cameras. It's the equivalent of the 28-135 zooms of 24x36mm sensor cameras or film.

 

The combination of non-rotating front element in focusing, USM, and IS make it far superior to most of the alternatives. I'd buy an upgrade from Canon if they offered one, but in the meantime it's so handy.

 

Perhaps Canon will respond to the latest from the third-party lens makers who are now starting to offer some "IS-equivalent" lenses in this sort of range. I'll wait to see how they test out. There is no L lens in this range with the features unless you go to 24x36 sensor cameras.

 

The lens is very good optically in terms of sharpness, so I don't get the "small prints" argument above, and its real flaws of barrel distortion, etc. are really very easily fixed in post-processing in Photoshop CS4 especially.

[JDMvW]

CS3, sorry.

[marknagel]

I had three. One I absolutely loved, the other two were ok (soft). Great range for general. Throw a 35mm prime for speed in your bag and your set.

 

m

[john_voss]

I bought mine as the kit lens with my 20D. I have numerous 16x24 landscape prints on my walls taken with this lens. I would rate the quality of these prints as very good. For best quality I try to stay within f8 - f16 and avoid the widest end of the zoom range whenever possible. It is now doing its duty on my 40D. I am very happy with mine.

 

John

[g dan mitchell]

Some follow up to: "I have numerous 16x24 landscape prints on my walls taken with this lens. I would rate the quality of

these prints as very good. For best quality I try to stay within f8 - f16 and avoid the widest end of the zoom range whenever

possible."

 

I have a variety of lenses and have used both crop and full frame DSLRs. I do my own printing and have a pretty good idea

what I'm doing. I could only rarely get a print that I regarded as acceptable at 12" x 18" from the EFS 17-85mm lens - and I

was quite often disappointed in the results of most images that I captured with it. This was true even when I used a tripod

and remote release. Bottom line: I could not consistently get sufficient IQ for a 12" x 18" print. (I did get some at this size

and slightly larger that were created by stitching several frames together.)

 

In general it would be a very bad idea to shoot this or any other lens on a cropped sensor camera at f/16, especially if you

plan to make a large print. Diffraction blur can become an issue at apertures smaller than about f/8 on crop sensor cameras,

and while you might occasionally choose to shoot at f/11 if the subject does not demand high resolution you would not likely

want to try to get a sharp image from a f/16 shot in a very large print.

 

I agree with the suggestion to avoid the extremes of focal length range with this lens. Here the corner softness and

vignetting issues become more noticeable.

 

Dan

 

(Who reminds that he isn't "against" this lens, but who think that it certainly is not appropriate for all users.)

[naturetrek]

Not a horrible lens, but the chromatic aberration (purple fringing) is really bad IMO. I've had shots in which the tree branches disappeared in a "purple mess". Pretty sharp in the center though, not so sharp at the edge. The IS is good though, I've yet to take a blurry image with it. It's worth $300 but not a cent more :)

[bob_king2]

I have found the 17-85 to be quite a reasonable performer. I bought mine used with a UV filter, CPL filter and hood and original packaging for $AU400. It lives on my 400D as a one camera, one lens solution when I want to travel light. I have an EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS which lives on my 40D for times when IQ is paramount. I rather like the 17-85 for many of the reasons listed above and I also find that its not put to shame by the 17-55.

 

On a recent trip to Sydney I took the 400D with the 17-85 - no flash, no tripod or other camera support. I took the pics below (with 100% crops).

The cathedral interior was handheld at f/5.6 @ 1/25, 17mm, 1600 ISO

The QVB interior shot was handheld at f/8 @ 1/20, 41mm, ISO 400

The Sydney Harbour shot was taken handheld of a moving boat from a moving boat, at f/10 @ 1/125, 85mm, ISO 200.

 

Unfortunately downrezzing and harsh JPEG compression for the net does not do any photo a lot of good. So, while I like the lens and would recommend it - don't buy new. A good used one (like mine) is worth it though.

 

Cheers, Bob<div></div>

[bob_king2]

Cathedral interior 100% crop<div></div>

[bob_king2]

QVB interior shot<div></div>

[bob_king2]

QVB interior 100% crop<div></div>

[bob_king2]

Speed boat<div></div>

[bob_king2]

Speed boat 100% crop<div></div>

[jonathan_lui]

I have this lens, and I agree with the comments above, both the good and bad. I hope some of the more

knowledgable people here can clarify one thing for me. I don't know if I'm reading it wrong, but according to the

test chart on dpreview, f/5.6 is sharper overall than f/8<br>

 

<br><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_17-85_4-5p6_is_usm_c16/page3.asp">17-85 review here</a><br>

 

The sharpness at f/8 seems to fall more rapidly and unevenly as you go farther from the center. Compare the

sharpness of f/5.6 and f/8 at 35mm, and at 50mm.<br>

 

I used to follow the "1-2 stops from maximum aperture" guideline, but after seeing the charts, I'm more inclined

to use f/5.6 when necessary.

[dogbert]

Not a fan and never really understood the concept.

 

It supposed to be a catch all lens, but it is not in the way an 18-200 zoom is. While it offers slightly higher IQ than a hyperzoom 18-200 lens, it doesn't offer very high quality. So if you value IQ go for something else, but if your IQ needs are not great why not go for a bigger zoom range still?

 

And while it offers 135 mm focal length equivalent, it doesn't do so in a way that is very useful. 135 mm lenses were traditonally portait lenses offering sufficient aperture to blur the background. This only offers f5.6. So tacking on the extra mm between 55 and 85 doesn't really offer anything that couldn't be made up with a few steps forward or back. And if confined to a focal length around 50 mm there are plenty of affordable f2.8 zooms to be had by Tamron, Sigma and Tokina, which could do useful portrait work.

 

Anyway that's just my thinking. $300 is pretty cheap for this lens and you could probably sell it at a profit if you didn't like it.

[albert lui]

In the full frame world, a zoom lens is sharpest at f8 and some primes are best at f5.6. Adjusting for the smaller APS-C sensor, f5.6 for good sharpness with the EF-S 17-85 IS seems normal and is a good thing. f5.6 has plenty of depth of field for general photography. If more depth of field is needed, I prefer to use A-DEP (which will set exposure (with the proper aperture) and focus). The classic wide angle shot, with a close foreground subject, is a natural application for A-DEP. The 17-85 is a great vacation lens!

[JDMvW]

>>135 mm lenses were traditonally portait lenses offering sufficient aperture to blur the background.<<

 

Nah, 85mm to 105mm are the traditional portrait lenses. 135mm for many, many moons was about as long a telephoto as you would normally find on things like Contax RFs. THE classic portrait lenses were the Biotar 75mm f/1.5 and the Nikkor 105mm f/2.5.

 

On a crop body, the old Biotar 58mm f/2 makes a fantastic portrait lens, by the way (use an inexpensive adapter and you have an optically superb stop-down, manual-focus lens)

[felipe]

Personally I think it's the best general purpose lens for the 400D and I'd be curious to hear if anyone has a better suggestion for $300. As for print size, I'm pretty happy with my 16x20's though I'm sure a prime would be better (big surprise). In my experience, at the wide end vignetting and barrel distortion can be an issue (especially the former), but chromatic aberration is not a problem.

[dmitriy_babichenko]

A few years ago I did a documentary about the 20th anniversary of Chernobyl. Because of many security issues I was only allowed to bring one camera and no camera bag. I shot the whole thing almost exclusively with a Canon 17-85 (I also had a 50mm 1.4 lens in my pocket and used that for a few shots). While I own better lenses and would never use 17-85 for wedding/commercial work, I was happy with this lens as a one-for-all solution. The images were more than acceptable and my clients were happy with the results.

[sami_lahtinen]

Thanks!