Canon 17-85 F4 - 5.6 USM Quality

[nuno_alvura]

I'm interested in acquiring a Canon EOS 40 D and and I was supposed to take the kit lenses(17.85), but, after

reading some articles about the quality of the pictures taken with this lenes, I have some doubts.

Is it acceptable that Cannon is selling such a good camera with a Kit lenses that can be deceiving? In spite of a

worst qualitty of construction, I've read that the 18-55 F3.5-5.5 IS lenses perform better...

Can the 17-70 F2.8 be a better choice? This lenses are cheapper, but some people say great things about it.

Kindest regards

Nuno

[naturetrek]

Hi Nuno. I've got this lens with my 50D kit. At first I was somewhat disappointed of the purple fringing in some shots, and somewhat lower sharpness at the edges. But I got to use it for some time now, and it became one of my favorite lenses. Getting it as part of the kit will cost you less than $300 which I think it's worth. The range is great, it's reasonably sharp, and (as I said in a previous post) I've yet to take a blurred photo with it because of the IS. Go try one first at a store before deciding.

[Charles_Webster]

I use the 17-85 IS as my "walk-around" lens on my 30D and have been very happy with the quality of the pictures. I am not a pixel peeper and am willing to overlook some subtle flaws in exchange for the versatility and ease of use of the lens. The IS has allowed me to get keepers in situations where the f/4 would have been hopeless.

 

Try it, you might like it. And the next best lens is more money for less zoom range.

 

<Chas>

[ed_v.]

Nuno--I paid $430 for this lens refurbished, so the bundle is a very good deal. The focal length range is unbeatable on a crop camera and the few flaws this lens has are easily corrected with software. Use it and enjoy as I and others have.

[albert lui]

The 17-85 is a great lens for travel photography. The IS (along with high ISO) provides low light and night shooting possiblilities. The lens has very good sharpness even at 85mm. At wide angle (around 17 mm), the extreme corners start getting soft, something lens correction software cannot fix (unlike vignetting/distortion/CA). It is the lens I take on international travel (when I want to travel light). I would buy it again.

[g dan mitchell]

<p>It is not a great lens.

 

<p>I used one for about a year on my first cropped sensor DSLR. It is known to have certain "issues," and I saw all of

them on my copy. They include:

 

<ul>

<li>Very soft corners, especially at largish aperture and extremes of focal length.

<li>Can be OK in the center, but often is not sharp enough for a quality 12" x 18" print.

<li>More chromatic aberration than expected.

<li>More pincushion/barrel distortion that expected.

<li>At the long end, you realistically have only a couple usable apertures given diffraction blur issues.

</ul>

 

<p>After that list of problems you might think I'd simply say "stay away from this lens." Not necessarily. It depends on

your goals. If you want a single all-in-one zoom and you will distribute electronically or print no larger than letter size it

could be a fine choice. If you are looking for a really high quality lens... this is not it.

 

<p>Dan

[david_williams10]

Have a look at this post

 

http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00RJpi

 

 

HTH

 

David

[anesh]

had it, sold it after a month. Rather try the 18-200, though no usm its a better lens optically.

[kbg32]

I've found the new 18-55 IS to be better then the 17-85. Could just be my examples.

[dogbert]

I have never been attracted to this lens after all I have heard about it. It seems too expensive for what is it - not fast, lots of distortion, CA and not great away from the center.

 

When Canon had IS to themselves they could get away with charging a lot for such a lens, but with others coming out with sharper kit lenses and putting IS in the body Canon has had to provide a much better 18-55 IS kit lens. This plus a fast prime seems to me a better choice.

 

If you want to go the single lens route, one of the many f2.8 zooms, such as the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX or the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, seems a better option - more useable apertures and f2.8 whcih gives the possibility of doign some nice portrait work.

 

If on the other hand you want a signle lens for travel, then many of the hyper zooms with a focal length beyond 85 mm seem more interesting.

[clgriffin]

Even in this high tech age, lenses vary from one to another. Shoot with it for a while and see if you like the

results. I took an XTi and 3 lenses to Europe for four months. A 10-22, a 17-85 IS and a 70-300 IS. I shot 8600

images, 90 percent with the 17-85. I always shot raw files and several of the ones that I have printed have been

printed up to 17X22.

 

Whenever someone tells you some lens is terrible, it's usually because they had a bad one or they read bad things

about it and didn't bother to test it for themselves. I've certainly had bad lenses, even had the chance to test

3 versions of a Leitz lens once and found only one that was as sharp as I expected them to be.<div></div>

[albert lui]

Charles Griffin, the voice of reason!

 

Here's an image taken at 17mm, the weakest focal length of the 17-85. Optical performance is good enough for me.<div></div>

[clgriffin]

Thanks, Albert, for the supporting data.

 

I was in a discussion the other day about poetry, which has two aspects: Sound and sight. To me the highest purpose of poetry is to sound good when read aloud.

 

This applies to photography, but for the visual sense. I think the ultimate proof is in the print, not pixel peeping. I try lenses and return them or sell them off if they don't work out, but I must have been remarkably lucky because I haven't purchased a bad one in a very long time.

 

Here's a 100 percent crop taken from the corner of a Van Gogh painting I shot, handheld. This is from the print jpeg file, so all post-processing has been done, but I think it speaks volumes about the potential of the 17-85 IS.<div></div>

[jeff_higdon]

Ditto, Charles, Albert. The 17-85 is capable of wonderful photos all through its range. Again here is one at 17mm, supposedly its weakest link.<div></div>

[dogbert]

I am not sure why it is percieved that the 17-85 is weakest at 17 mm? The photozone tests show that it is sharpest at its widest setting and softer towards 85 mm, although distortion is highest at 17mm where in their words it sets a new record.

 

And with all due respect, while these are some nice pictures there is nothing ineherent in them to me that demonstrates the 17-85 IS is a great lens. Sure it is quite capable, but the real question is does it stand out from the crowd as being good value?

[jeff_higdon]

Geoff:

 

I agree with Dan, it's not a great lens. But as Albert put it, it can be a great choice for travel if you are only going to take one or two lenses. It's a consumer lens. It's not an L. Its range and its size are very good. It has IS, FTM, USM. It's built far better than either 18-55 kit lens which means it will take more abuse and last longer. The 17-40 has the same (albeit somewhat less) distortion on the wide end but lacks IS. Its other compettion is the Sigma 17-70 and the Tamrons 28-75 and 17-50, each of which have their own issues. I am not aware of a 17-70 2.8. The Sigma I believe is 2.8-4.

 

I think the 17-85 shines at 85mm. See attached.

 

This is not a great indoor lens. That does not mean it is not capable of taking wonderful indoor (with flash) photos. I just find it harder to do so. And many agree. But that's because it's a slow lens.

 

I do think it's a great value when bought nearly new or used. It's not a great value at its list or normal street price right out of the box.

 

I further agree with Dan regarding printing in sizes much larger than 8x10. But it's not impossible to get a good shot worthy of larger prints. It's just more work and may involve a tripod or the outdoors as your subject matter. The distortion is easily fixable and it does not exist in every 17mm photo. Indeed, I have found such distortion to be the exception rathher than the rule. CA is a problem for plenty of lenses and this one is no exception.

 

It's not a great lens but I believe the vast majority of owners of the 17-85 love it or like it alot.<div></div>

[albert lui]

Geoff: The somewhat soft corners at 17mm are not fixable by software like DPP or PTLens. That is why I consider 17mm to be the weak point. Whether or not it impacts the picture seems to depend on the subject. In the Victoria Peak view, I hardly notice it. In that shot, CA and distortion were effectively corrected by DPP.

 

Charles, Jeff: I enjoyed reading your insightful, balanced discussions on the 17-85. Very nice images too.

 

I think that the versatility of having this focal range and IS together, cannot be overstated. I like the performance at 85mm too - here's a night shot (camera was hand held at 0.1 sec).<div></div>

[clgriffin]

A lens test of an individual lens is only that. While it may show general characteristics, each lens has a quality (or lack thereof) all its own. The proof is in the final product.

 

The example of the Van Gogh is from the corner of the shot. It was taken at the 24mm setting.

 

This is the whole shot, less the wooden frame. The VINCENT seems pretty sharp in the detail section.<div></div>

[clgriffin]

Now, how about 17mm? The 1910 Ferris wheel at Vienna.<div></div>

[clgriffin]

One more at 17mm.<div></div>

[clgriffin]

Now an 85mm shot, from the Cornwall region of the UK. I say it is a good general purpose lens, if used correctly.<div></div>

[clgriffin]

And indoors? I have more examples than space, but it doesn't get more indoors than this example taken in a cave near Cahors, France. 1/3 second, handheld IS on. At f4 using ISO 1600. I got three shots, two of which were keepers before the guide said "No Photos."

 

I couldn't have got this shot with my 24-70, even if I had it along, because no IS. At 2.8 or even 1.2 with a better lens, the depth of field might have been too little using a different lens and shooting for the highest shutter speed I could obtain.

 

With good technique, the lens can do great work.<div></div>

[albert lui]

Even with help from IS, the Pech Merle shot took very steady hands. Excellent vacation and photos, Charles.