Comments about the Canon 17-85IS lens please.

[robert_thommes1]

<p>This lens offers an excellent range for my needs. However, I seem to be hearing as many "cons" as pros about it. I would like to hear from actual users or past users; as I know what the reviewers have said about it, and this is not always the way REAL users feel. <br>

Sample images in places like pBase show the lens off as "decent" from what I can see.<br>

So just how good or bad is it? Is this a lens that one should avoid like the plague?</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>I use one as my "walk-around" lens. It's OK, not great, not bad. It suffers from some well known deficiencies, but offers some offsetting benefits.</p>

<p>I think a better choice today might be the 17-55 IS kit lens, which produces somewhat better image quality for a much smaller price.</p>

<p>I would buy the lens again, for what I use if for. I wouldn't advise using it for critical studio work.</p>

<p><Chas></p>

[phule]

<p>http://www.google.com/search?q=17-85+site%3Aphoto.net</p>

<p>You already know there are many posts from real users in the archives.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>I am personally a big fan of this lens. It has the compromises of all longer range zooms that cover from wide angle to telephoto. However, the results are much better than with even longer lenses, and are mostly easily corrected in post processing where the problems become obvious. They are not all that obvious in normal shooting, but I wouldn't recommend this one for heavy duty architectural work, for example. In a pinch, however, I have used it for just that during an unexpected day in Oak Park (Frank Lloyd Wright country), Illinois, while waiting on a plane to come in.<br>

The real advantage over the 17-55mm is that extra 30mm on the long end. The disadvantage is the f/4-5.6, but the IS makes up for a lot of that. Especially if you're not afraid of high ISOs.</p>

<p>If I were buying one now, I'd carefully consider the newer 15-85mm lens, but I've certainly kept the 17-85 as my 'walk around' lens on my xxD and 'Rebel' bodies. On my 5D I love the 24-105mm IS in the same way that I do the 17-85.</p>

[robert_thommes1]

<p>I don't wish to complicate this question, but would like to know your thoughts on the Canon 18-135IS lens in comparison to the 17-85IS. Is the longer zoom any better in IQ at the wide end than that of the 17-85?</p>

[bueh]

<p>Past user here. The cons are true. It is abysmally slow (even my plate camera has a faster lens!), has distortion galore and I did not like the weight distribution of this front-heavy zoom (especially when focused close), making hand-holding uncomfortable. On the plus side it has good AF and very good IS.<br>

So, it is a "decent" lens, but with "features" that may or may not be dealbreakers for you. It is not really "good" and not really "bad".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is the longer zoom any better in IQ at the wide end than that of the 17-85?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. It is even worse than the (well-regarded) EF-S 18-55mm kit zoom.</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>Remember that background blurring will be limited due to the slowness. This is my big disappointment with most zooms, when folks say zoom design has caught up with primes I say "then why can't I get a 2:1 range zoom with f 2.0 across the range?"<br>

If background blurring on portraits, fine art, candids, is important to you be prepared to be disappointed in that regard.</p>

 

[robert_thommes1]

<p>Though I am somewhat concerned with the aperture that I use, I seldom get hung up on blurring backgrounds. In fact, if it wasn't for the lack of good sports capabilities, I could probably exist just fine with a good super-zoom bridge camera. So I guess that would say that I'm rather fond of the entire image being in sharp focus. That is, "most" of the time.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I picked up the 18-135 IS with a 7D as it was only an extra $200 but I have only used it a few times - it went to the kids. The 18-135 is not a bad lens. It has pretty quick AF (very quick considering it is not USM) and has very good image stabilization. The quality is not great but you can get very acceptable photos with it. I am not sure I would pay the full price for it but you should be able to find them used for about $300 in top condition.</p>

[sjsimmons]

<p>I've had this lens for several years, and I think it's a great lens. It's nice and sharp, which is what I care most about. If you don't have to shoot at f/2.8, I doubt you'll be disappointed with this lens. After all, take this lens at 85mm f/8 and the 85mm prime at f/8 and shoot the same image, you're going to get the same depth of field. <br>

There are some limitations with this lens, like vignetting, barrel distortion around 17mm and pincushion distortion elsewhere, but if you use Lightroom, one click of a button fixes that. If you use that or another program with a similar feature, it's just plain silly to let that be your reason for buying a more expensive lens. And I also had the IS break on me, and I had to send it into Canon to fix it ($125 repair). I suppose that's a risk with any consumer grade lens, but it happened to me after about 3 years (I think) of significant use.<br>

Here's Ken Rockwell's review: <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/17-85-is.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/17-85-is.htm</a></p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I've heard so much bitch 'n cry about the 17-85 IS from armchair photogeeks, I was very hesitant to buy it. But I found a new one on black friday for $350, figured what the hell, and bought it for my wife. Man I was surprised. What an excellent optic for the price: ultra fast AF, FTM petite form factor, great zoom range and surprisingly sharp wide open (how it gets used 75% of the time since it's so slow!). Maybe I lucked out and got an exceptional one but it's a keeper.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I heard so much bragging what a bang-up optic the 18-55 IS was I bought one last year. It was the worse piece of donkey doo I've ever mounted on my camera: slow AF, cheap flimsy construction and was extremely soft on the left side. Yes, it is only $200 but blurry left side is too expensive at any discount. I returned it to Amazon.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Way back when I got my first DSLR (used film before that) I got this lens with an inexpensive "Rebel" model that I used to test the waters. I used it for some time before finally realizing that it wasn't right for me, though it could easily be right for a different kind of photographer. The lens has its strengths and weaknesses, and for the most part I think you'll find supporting evidence for my thoughts on the lens:<br /> <strong>Strengths</strong></p>

<ul>

<li>The 17-85mm focal length range can be very useful for many photographers - it is roughly equivalent to the old standby 28-135mm zoom from 35mm film SLRs. For quite a few people it can be the only lens they need.</li>

<li>The image-stabilization feature is quite useful for many using this lens, few of whom probably use a tripod. IS is especially useful in a lens like this one that does not have very large maximum aperture, especially at the longer focal lengths.</li>

<li>Image quality can be OK for certain uses - for example it is for the most part quite fine for someone making relatively casual photographs that they will share online or in email.</li>

<li>The price is decent for such a lens.</li>

</ul>

<p><strong>Weaknesses</strong></p>

<ul>

<li>The lens suffers from considerable corner softness.</li>

<li>The barrel distortion is quite significant. I agree with one review where it was described as the most significant they had seen in a zoom of this sort.</li>

<li>Vignetting is also significant, especially at the larger apertures and extremes of focal length.</li>

<li>The largest apertures are not very large at all for such a lens, and because it is a variable aperture lens the largest aperture is only f/5.6 at 85mm. Not only is this problematic in low light, but in general it poses problems on a cropped sensor camera where there may be concerns about diffraction blur when stopping down beyond about f/8. In other words, at 85mm you really have only two "good" apertures, "wide open" at f/5.6 and stopped down at f/8. </li>

</ul>

<p>Is it a good lens or a bad lens? As in almost all cases the answer really depends on what your expectations are. If you are thinking of a lens for relatively casual use that will let you avoid lens changes and perhaps be the only lens you need for shooting photographs that you'll share as jpgs or occasionally print to perhaps letter size... it can be a very fine choice. If you have aspirations to make very careful and high quality photographs that you'll turn into larger prints, or if you intend to shoot in low light... you may want to look elsewhere.</p>

<p>Finally, a little story. As I mentioned at the start, I picked this up with a Rebel body a number of years ago as my way of trying digital SLR photography without investing a lot of money. I found out that the Rebel was actually capable of producing quite good images when used carefully... but that the 17-85 lens handicapped <em>me</em> a great deal. There were two occasions when I found myself with only this lens/camera combination in once in a lifetime conditions, once at the Racetrack in Death Valley (it is a long story) and the other on an eastern Sierra pack trip when I thought I'd try lightening my load by carrying only this single lens and the smaller camera body. In each case I ended up making one photograph that would have made a very special large print... but in neither case can I coax more than about 12 x 18 out the images as a print due to the deficiencies of this lens. For the record, I really do know what I'm doing, with the camera and in post...</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[Burnsie]

<p>Each lens has it's pros and cons, but any of them are good enough in my opinion. I've used them all (hobbyist only).</p>

<p>Years ago, I started with original kit lens (18-55) on Canon 300D, eventually it broke, and I then upgraded to the 17-85 and used it for years. My son now uses the 17-85 nearly all the time as a walk around lens on his new T2i (outdoors). The reach is great. Indoors he uses 28, 50, or 85 1.8 primes mainly for concert / band pictures in low light. That combination works for him. </p>

<p>The new kit lens is really light, takes better pictures in my opinion compared to original kit lens, and is pretty balanced on the smaller digital rebs (My daughter uses one now on her T2i and in her small hands that works well.) She uses flash for indoors pictures, and for a relatively new photographer, that combination works well. She doesn't like switching lens - yet! :)</p>

<p>This Christmas my wife surprised me and I now have the fast 17-55 2.8 lens on my 40D. A little heavier than the others, but it is balanced and fits well with my larger hands on the larger xxD body. The advantage is that I use it both indoors and outdoors. It's fast enough to do that (great images) but costs a lot compared to the others.</p>

<p>I never used the new 15-85 but I suspect based on reviews it is an improvement over the older 17-85 (maybe like how the second gen kit lens is better than first gen?)</p>

<p>The point is that each lens (in combination with other lenses, bodies, flash, and shooter expectations, especially on how they want to use the equipment), can be made to work. </p>

<p>No matter what lens we use, the feedback we get from family and friends is almost always amazement at how much better 35mm digital pictures look (compared to point and shoot cameras.)</p>

 

[nathangardner]

<p>I loved mine. Like you said, its a great range. It also has IS and since the arrival of the new 15-85mm, used prices are very affordable. This is one of Canon's best "bang for your buck" lenses in my opinion. No, its not an L lens, but it also doesn't cost nearly $1000. It seems that some people will label a lens as trash if it doesn't meet L standards, and the fact is, that budget is one of the biggest factors in buying a lens. This is a very good, budget friendly lens. Here's a sample image from my old 17-85mm on my 40D.</p><div></div>

[sjsimmons]

<p>In response to another post, I have on my wall several photos taken with a Canon 40D and this lens with print sizes ranging from 10"x15" to 20"x30," and they are all sharp--no problems. I pixel-peep on a lot of my images, and the only times I have had problems are when there's user error--focusing on the background, forgetting to turn of the IS when mounted on a tripod, etc. I shoot all over the 17-85mm range to f/16 and smaller, and I've had no problems that can't be easily fixed by a click of a button in software. <br>

If you can't get sharp images with this lens it is because (1) it's defective and needs to be sent back to Canon, (2) it's not calibrated properly for your camera or (3) user error.</p>

[danny_wilson]

<p>I have at the 17-85 now for a few years on my 40D, and I have no big complaints. Other than its obvious limitations in build and IQ, here are a few feelings I have about it:<br>

<strong>Pros:</strong> great range of focal lengths for walk-around (this is my primary lens), very fast and reliable AF on my 40D, IS works very well, good durability (I have really abused this thing while backpacking on several continents), good image quality, fairly light weight (especially when compared with 17-55 2.8, 24-70L, or 24-105L).<br>

<strong>Cons:</strong> the zoom ring is very under-damped and gives it that sort of "cheesy" cheap Canon lens feel, the under-damped zoom ring results in constant (and very irritating) gravity zoom while carrying it around, one time while I was in Thailand the body of the lens started to separate near the focus ring (I had to press it axially to "pop" the lens body back together), my original copy short-focused so I sent it into Canon under warranty to be fixed.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

"If you can't get sharp images with this lens it is because (1) it's defective and needs to be sent back to Canon, (2) it's

not calibrated properly for your camera or (3) user error."

 

Or my standards for print quality may be different. For my work I would rarely be satisfied with print quality much

beyond 16 x 24 from cropped sensor originals, even if the photographs were made with very fine lens and shot with a

great deal of care. I'm not putting down anyone with a different standard, just pointing out that there are differences.

 

If your goal is excellent quality large prints, there are other lens choices that would likely make more sense.

 

Dan

[sjsimmons]

<p>Obviously if you need professional quality glass to suit your needs, this lens won't work for you. I'm simply saying that this lens is quite sharp--as sharp as you can expect a consumer grade lens to be, and I can prove it with the pictures on my wall. You said that the IQ "can be OK for certain uses - for example it is for the most part quite fine for someone making relatively casual photographs that they will share online or in email." That simply isn't true. There's a whole range of photographic needs between "casual photographs" and the standards for print quality you are now describing. <br>

Anyone owning this lens and using it properly with a decent camera should be able to make relatively large prints that could hang on your wall at home or in an art gallery. For most uses, this lens is more than adequate for 18" x 24" prints. As I said before, I've printed 10 megapixel images from this lens at 20" x 30" that were quite sharp. Heck, even Ken Rockwell says, "Except for the wide angles being crammed together on the zoom ring, making them hard to select, this is pretty much a perfect lens."</p>

[margo_brooder1]

<p>I just purchased this lens used for $230 (by the way, would anyone mind telling me if that is a good price?), and so far I find it sharper at times in the center than a 24-105L that I may sell. The distortion at the wide end of the 17-85 is spectacular, but for my purposes, it does not matter much. There is also visible light falloff at the corners, but I care most about center sharpness, and in my tests the lens has done very well at that. I have not particularly noticed the softness at the long end yet, but I am a novice. The IS seems excellent.<br>

I was just looking for an inexpensive, wide-angle zoom lens to learn on, and I am happy so far with the 17-85. I want to buy a Canon 135mm f/2.0 someday, so I would put the proceeds of the 24-105mm toward that.<br>

All the best,<br>

Margo</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Anyone owning this lens and using it properly with a decent camera should be able to make relatively large prints that could hang on your wall at home or in an art gallery. For most uses, this lens is more than adequate for 18" x 24" prints. As I said before, I've printed 10 megapixel images from this lens at 20" x 30" that were quite sharp. Heck, even Ken Rockwell says, "Except for the wide angles being crammed together on the zoom ring, making them hard to select, this is pretty much a perfect lens."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess we'll have to continue to differ on this point. I regularly print to 24 x 36 on the printer that is sitting next to me as I type this. I've used DSLRs from 8MP cropped sensor models to my current full frame models. The largest print that I was been able to coax out of a 8MP original shot with that lens - using a tripod and remote release - was 12 x 18. I got a few. But I would not characterize the performance of the lens as ever being "more than" adequate at this size - from my perspective "barely adequate" was as good as it got. More often the results were unreliable and too soft. In particular, the lens had a very hard time with subjects like foliage or the details of rocks and so forth, especially in the corners.</p>

<p>While a 20 x 30 image from a 10MP photograph using this lens may be "quite sharp" from your perspective, we may well have a different notion of what "quite sharp" means. And if yours allows for the less than stellar performance from this lens, then so be it. But let's not mislead lens shoppers into imagining that they'll be able to produce first-rate "gallery" quality large prints from this lens.</p>

<p>(And, yes, I do understand that maximum size is a relative thing. I did license several images from the same 8MP camera, some of which might have been shot using this lens, to a firm doing interior design for a hospital - and they were going to make very large wall panels from them. However, they were going to be design elements and not "gallery" photographs, and they were going to be viewed from a very large distance - they functioned essentially as "wall paper.")</p>

<p>At the same time, I think we might agree that it is very important to not suggest to all camera/lens buyers that they need the sorts of cameras and lenses used by folks who do regularly print at these very large sizes. That is why I wrote more positively about the potential of lenses like this one for what I regard as the majority of cropped sensor DSLR shooters - namely those who mostly share their photographs in electronic form either online or in emails, and who rarely print larger than letter size.</p>

<p>Those who want other views on this lens - though I really have no ax to grind about it - would do well to consult a wide range of lens reviews and tests that generally come to very similar conclusions about the EFS 17-85mm lens.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>BTW, I like Margo's post - it reinforces my feelings about this lens and how/when it can be useful.</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>Heck, even Ken Rockwell says,[...]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And when Mr. Rockwell says it, it must be true... *roll eyes*</p>

[robert_thommes1]

<p>Sounds to me like the majority feel that the 17-85 is OK; especially if you are aware of it's couple of shortcomings, and can work around, or deal with them. So, I'm not turned off from this lens as a result of these comments. Now.....is the 18-135IS lens preferred? That's my next question. But, assuming that both of these lenses are not perfect(which lens is?), the spectacular IS and FTM of the 17-85 is in it's favor right now. Then, if you can convince me that one of these lenses has an obvious upper hand over the other where general IQ is concerned, that'll be the lens for me.<br>

I REALLY have appreciated the comments to this points. Thanks for taking the time.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[Now.....is the 18-135IS lens preferred]]</p>

<p>It's amazing what one can forget since November.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00XixR</p>

[robert_thommes1]

<p>Well Rob, I wouldn't say that the past post answers my specific issue here. But in your defense, it's close. Thanks for pointing this out to me. I did recall asking that question, but it did not surface when I searched BEFORE asking this one. Guess I didn't use the appropriate key words for that to happen. </p>

[sjsimmons]

<blockquote>

<p>But let's not mislead lens shoppers into imagining that they'll be able to produce first-rate "gallery" quality large prints from this lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's my whole reason for responding to what's been said before. Your previous assessment was that "Image quality can be OK for certain uses - for example it is for the most part quite fine for someone making relatively casual photographs that they will share online or in email." That's clearly misleading at best. After all, my little point & shoot is capable of "casual photographs" to share on line. You gave that the 17-85mm on a Rebel is not really better for a point & shoot camera. The pictures I have on my wall and displayed in galleries prove my point. Of course, we can disagree on that point, but I see no reason to ask someone to buy a more expensive lens when this one is just fine.<br>

And Bueh doesn't seem to like the fact that I cited Rockwell. The "even" in my quote should assure you that I don't believe that just because Rockwell says it it must be true. In fact, if you read what I initially said about this lens, you'd know that I pointed out its faults--I wouldn't call it near perfect. I just think most of the problems with this lens can be fixed with software. I see no reason to spend extra money on a lens that doesn't have barrel distortion when it can be so easily fixed in Lightroom. <br>

I find that I agree with dpreview's assessment of the lens, which gives it credit for "consistently high image quality across almost all of the range" and also acknowledges that its flaws at wide angle can be overcome by shooting in RAW and using Photoshop.</p>