17-85 - is it so bad? IQ vs L zooms

[OPK]

<p>Hi,<br>

I wonder if 17-85 is good or poor lens in casual shots. Now I'm shooting with 17-40 but is there a really need to use such a lens? it costs over 800$ (in country where I'm living) when 17-85 is sold now for about 300$. I can easily sell L lens for about 700$, buy 17-85 for 300$ and for a cash left buy some prime or flash.</p>

<p>what really interessted me is difference in IQ. is it so much inferior to 17-40L? or there's gonna be barely visible differences in street shots...I don't bother construction quality. Just overal IQ and use convenience.<br>

I shoot mosly between f5,6 - f11</p>

<p>thanks for any advice....:)</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>When the EF-S 17~85 was first released, I did some, admitteldy not very scientific, tests on a 20D to compare it with the 17~40, and came to the conclusion that the 17~40 had clearly better IQ throughout its range, although of course it has a much smaller zoom range – too small to make it a really satisfactory standard zoom on 1.6-factor – and lacks IS. My conclusion about IQ is consistent with all of the technical test reports that I have seen. Replacing your 17~40 with the recently introduced EF-S 15~85 could make sense, although you would not make a saving by doing so, but you would certainly lose something by replacing it with the 17~85. </p>

[laurent_jaussi]

<p>I have a 17-85 and I am happy with it...a very good walkaround lens...I don't have a 17-40 so I cannot compare...for me the quality of light makes a much larger difference than quality of the lens...what I miss maybe is the constant aperture and the internal zooming, the 17-85 zoom moves when the camera is moved which is a bit annoying for fast prefocussed street type of shooting...</p>

[OPK]

<p>most of reviews are mainly for pixel peepers, and there's a hardly real life comparision (like studio shots). I read all of them and know 'nothing' except 'L' has better overall quality in imatest, lines, pixels, letters... but how does it looks like in street candid photography or lanscapes?<br>

17-85 is now 3 times cheaper than 17-40</p>

[mars c]

<p>I have the 17-85, It is a perfectly "OK" lens for me. I think you'll gonna be happy with it, if you dont pixel peep alot. My copy is quite sharp at tele end and more than acceptable at the wide end.</p>

[anov]

<p>When I had that lens, I sold this picture:<br /><a href="../photo/7433107">http://www.photo.net/photo/7433107</a><br />So it's perfectly capable to give good result, yes it has linear distortion on the wide end, some CA (easily corrected in DPP) and slow, but it has IS and ring USM, fairly compact for a zoom that range. I would get it to replace the 17-40.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The 17-85mm is one of my favorite lenses for APS-C bodies. It is very much like the 28-135mm IS on 35mm, and nearly equivalent to the highly regarded 24-105mm L lens. All of these lenses have similar "flaws", part of the breed really, but they are non-critical for most applications. None of them is really made for architectural shooting, say. In landscape or day-to-day shooting, they all have good IQ and their warts are no problem at all. I have had all three of these.<br>

I don't have the 17-40mm but from what I read it is not that much better in that it also has some barrel distortion at the wide end, a little CA, and so on. As a 35mm sensor lens, it is favored by the cropping in an APS-C camera, however.</p>

<p>As a single lens for walking around without carrying other equipment, it's hard to beat the 17-85 on a APS-C body, unless you go for the newer and more expensive 15-85mm.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I had a 17-85 on my first DSLR. My conclusion was that it isn't a great lens but that it can be perfectly serviceable for somewhat casual photography, particularly if you really want a one-lens solution and you won't make large prints.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I had the 17-85mm and upgraded to the 17-40mm L. The 17-85mm beats the 17-40mm L hands down in the 41-85mm range. The L lens does have better IQ, build, and a constant f/4, but the 17-85mm is a great lens. Its not as sharp as the 17-40mm, but definately a very capable lens. I took plenty of nice shots with this lens and the prints look great too. If you don't pixel peep and make extra large prints I think you will be very happy with the 17-85mm. For me, I'm a perfectionist and I have to know that I that I am getting the best possible results (for my budget) no matter what, even if it means changing lenses a hundred times; if this is you, then I'd stick with the L, but if you are just shooting casually and can sacrafice a little quality for a lot of conveneince, then I'd get the 17-85mm.</p>

[OPK]

<p>I shoot mostly candid street pictures as you can see in my private website... for portraits I pick up rather 85 or 60mm primes. what I really need is good walkaround lens, not for huge enlargements nor stock purpose.<br>

I just want avoid really poor optics</p>

[peter_rowe]

<p>I think the Canon 17-85mm IS is almost the perfect lens for casual shots and more, and the price is now fantastic, you can get a used mint condition one for just a little over $200 on Fred Miranda. When I first bought my 20D (the day it shipped) I got the kits lens and was very disappointed. So I read up and found a lot of recommendation for the 50mm F1.8 so I bought that and was disappointed, then I heard about how great the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 was so I bought that and was disappointed. Through all of this I heard nothing but complains about the 17-85mm. But finally I bought it and it has worked perfectly on my 20D every since. I can print 13" x 19" prints and they are cutting sharp. I now have a 5D MK II with a 17-40mm and 24-105mm. Ignoring the pixel count I would say that the 20D and 17-85mm would give them a darn good run for the money. Maybe I have the best 17-85mm ever made but it surely works well. Almost every shot here <a href="http://www.peterrowephoto.com/">http://www.peterrowephoto.com/</a> was taken with the 17-85mm (if you click the full screen button in the top right corner photos will size larger to match).<br>

Just my humble opinion.</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>Gorgeous shots Peter. So sharp they hurt your eyes. I'm getting a 17-85mm right now, before the supply dries up.</p>

[roger_mullenhour]

<p>I have the 17-85 and find it to be excellent. Maybe I have a great copy but I am very satisfied with it. I recently rented a 17-40 for a weekend from Samy's and did controlled test shots at all ranges the 17-40 covered. My conclusion was better contrast and sharpness on my 17-85. I was really surprised that the 17-40 underperformed but the 40-85 extra coverage is wonderful. I have taken around 8000 images with this lens and it has performed.</p>

[bob_king2]

<p>The 17-85 is a decent lens IMO. I use it on a 400D as a compact walkaround setup and it is fine. I haven't tried my 17-40 on the 400D but I know it works well on my 5DII along with the 24-105 L. Yes, the 5D + L combo produces better IQ than the 400D + 17-85 but I don't think it is a night and day difference under normal shooting conditions. As far as the 17-85 is concerned, I value its relatively small size, its zoom range and IS.</p>

<p>Maybe you could buy the 17-85 first without selling the 17-40. Play with both of them for a while then sell the lens that doesn't work as well for you.</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>

[kristinsson]

<p>My experience with the 17-85 is that it's a good lens for what it costs and it has fairly good IQ.<br>

Compared to a high priced pro lens you might notice a difference, especially so on a good FF body, but for prints or web work and some after sharpening I seriously doubt most people could notice a difference in the end result.<br>

However, I would seriously recommend the 15-85 over the 17-85 as it's just that much better ;)</p>

[micha_goldfine1]

<p>I sold my 17-85 IS USM kit lens that I got with my 40D and got a 17-40 f4L. I could not stand the woeful barrel distortion and CA at wide angels until about 35mm. from 35 to 85 it's quite a good sharp lens but slow (f 5.6).<br>

When I started shooting with the 17-40L I was amazed at the difference. QA, fantastic, almost no CA, and the color rendition and balance is fantastic due to the additional UD glass.<br>

I also bought the cheap 50mm f 1.8 II lens for close ups and for fun since I love primes more then zooms.<br>

Micha </p>