17-85mm IS?

[Steve Parr]

I went to the "candy store" today, and was looking at some short zooms. One that I was shown, that I hadn't considered (I was leaning towards the 17-40mm L) was the 17-85mm IS. It seemed like it was solid, well made, and I definitelty like the zoom range.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this particular lens?

[Skip Souza]

Steve, I absolutely love mine. I have experienced neither CA nor flare. (I always use the hood and avoid shooting into the sun) The IS is remarkable and is more valuable to me than a see-in-the-dark aperture. The lens really responds well to the CP. I give it two thumbs up.

[SR071]

Considering the other lenses in your bag, you'd probably be disappointed with this lens. I'd suggest the new 2.8 version, which also has IS. This would be better suited to the existing glass you have, and you'd be more at home with 2.8. I have the 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 and would never consider anything slower now I've been spoilt.

[Jim G]

I was quite happy with mine until I started buying primes and having a look at some of the 2.8 lenses (Sigma 24-70, Canon 24-70 etc.) and since then I've been really disappointed with it for what I do... mostly low-light work/concerts/portraits for which I like using f/2.8-4 for. For ourdoors use the 17-85 is fine, the CA isn't a particular bother to me unless I want to shoot wide open at black trees against a white sky :p

I actually hardly ever use it compared to the 50mm prime, the colour/contrast/saturation is that much better... Depending on the kind of work you do I'd suggest looking at the 24-70 (or 28-75 Tamron) zooms and figuring out if you want the extra stop or the IS and a little extra range.

Oh, and mine has a couple of bits of dust inside it which, whilst it doesn't affect the image quality at all, are quite annoying. Happened within the first couple of weeks of owning it and I keep it in a very clean environment :p

Anyway, that's another viewpoint. It's pretty light and not a bad walkaround zoom for daytime outdoors, imho.

[Saudidave]

I love mine. The range is brilliant, it's a great walkaround and it lives on my camera 98% of the time. Quality? Well, pixel peepers and L freaks will be dissapointed I suppose, but most people in the real world would be more than happy. I certainly am.

[nitsch]

Steve, I'm another fan of the 17-85 IS. The range and IS make it a winner for me over the 17-40. IQ is very similar between the two. The 17-40 is better built but the 17-85 build quality is good enough to endure most environments. If you go for the 17-85, definately get the hood as well.

[Steve Parr]

Considering the other lenses in your bag, you'd probably be disappointed with this lens. I'd suggest the new 2.8 version, which also has IS. This would be better suited to the existing glass you have, and you'd be more at home with 2.8. I have the 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 and would never consider anything slower now I've been spoilt.

Isn't the 2.8 version an "L"?

I'm looking at also ordering the Bigma, so I'm looking at the price factor here.

For concert shooting, I think the lenses currently in my bag cover that pretty well. Hell, I don't use the 28mm all that much.

I'm looking for a good quality, won't break the bank, piss off the wife, and can stay on the camera the majority of the time, walk-around lens.

Seems like, for the most part, people seem to like it.

Oh, and the hood; I'd absolutely get the hood. I don't own a lens that doesn't have one...

[OregonRebel]

The 17 - 85 is a great walkaround lens, and my most used one by far.

[Mike Bell]

I got my 350D pretty recently and chose the EF-S 17-85 IS as a daylight walkaround lens. I wanted a camera/lens setup that's comfortable to handle all day and takes modest wide angle to medium telephoto and portrait. This combo is superb at that job.

The 17-85 is fast enough in daylight especially with the 2-3 stop effect of the IS (f4 at 17-23, f4.5 at 24-34, f5 at 35-49 and f5.6 at 50-85).

If you did want low light capability there is the newly announced EF-S 17-55 IS. It is a constant f2.8. As always the price of fast lenses is weight and cost. The EF-S 17-85 is 475g, the EF-S 17-55 is 645g and bigger too. It also costs quite a lot more.

[Dorman]

Steve,

The 17-85 IS gets good reviews. I've been reading a bunch as I'm looking for a new walkaround lens as well. I'm debating between the 17-40L or the 17-85 IS. I've never used IS so I can't comment on it's usefulness, but it sure makes the lens expensive!

[LightRules]

I'm a big supporter of the 1785IS. While it is not as good as the 1740L in certain respects (lateral CA, barrel distortion, build), the IS+focal range makes it a superb walkaround lens. That said, I'm eyeing the new 1755IS. That looks like it'll be a killer lens.

[Steve Parr]

I'm a big supporter of the 1785IS. While it is not as good as the 1740L in certain respects (lateral CA, barrel distortion, build), the IS+focal range makes it a superb walkaround lens. That said, I'm eyeing the new 1755IS. That looks like it'll be a killer lens.

One of the biggest things I like about it is the zoom range. Sure, a 17-40mm L would be sweet, but so would a 17-85mm zoom with IS.

These two, right now, are the front-runners for the wide end of my next shopping spree. I checked out the 10-22mm, and I didn't really care for it. I think it's possible to get too wide, and that lens was simply too wide for me...

[Dorman]

Still on the fence with these two as they're similar in price, sitting with both in my B&H Shopping cart, but one has to leave. :(

[Skip Souza]

I think the new 17-55 f/2.8 IS should be amazing BUT you get half the range and twice the light at twice the price. Not worth it to me. My 17-85 IS is my most used lens unless I am shooting motor sports or wild life. As to low light capabilities, I shot this inside Hurst Castle in very low light. It is a seriously cropped image of a tapestry hanging in a rather dark room. It shows the detail of a battle of CDS and Belmondo (full beard) leading a charge against the Trolls and Spammers at the gates of POTN :-)
1/6 second, f/4, ISO 800, hand held. No flash.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=58360&d=1140495656

[Dorman]

Nice shot Skip!

[mbze430]

I would hold off and wait for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I mean IS + 2.8?!? with S-UD glass...it is a L lens without the construction

[Steve Parr]

I would hold off and wait for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I mean IS + 2.8?!? with S-UD glass...it is a L lens without the construction

I have no idea what the price tag is going to be, though.

Again, the lower light capability isn't that much of a concern, as I've got the 70-200mm f/2.8L and the 85mm f/1.8 that get the workout when I'm shooting live bands.

Any idea what the pricve tag on the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS will be?

[Dorman]

Steve, I think the 17-55 IS f/2.8 will be rather spendy, definitely in the L price range. That being said, the 17-85 IS is also on par with the price of the 17-40L.

[nitsch]

I have no idea what the price tag is going to be, though.

Again, the lower light capability isn't that much of a concern, as I've got the 70-200mm f/2.8L and the 85mm f/1.8 that get the workout when I'm shooting live bands.

Any idea what the pricve tag on the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS will be?

IIRC it's RRP is going to be $1150, how this relates to the actual price it will sell for I don't know. I believe it is going to be available around May.

[Steve Parr]

There's no way in Hell I can see spending that kind of money on a lens like that, fast or not. I've got fast. In this case, the speed gained from the f/2.8 wouldn't be a realistic trade off for me...

Steve

[RuggerJoe]

I've been eyeing this lens as well. And I'm wondering how it handles indoors under ambient lighting (basically with the room lights on, not dark rooms). I hate using a flash when snapping candids at family gatheringa or frineds parties.

[Jetmech1]

I think the range of the 17-85 would be more useful than that of the 17-40, if a walk around lens in what your wanting.

[Steve Parr]

Jetmech1, it definitely is.

Also, does the 17-85mm have macro? If so, then that'll be the deal maker...

[Dorman]

No Macro but I bet you can focus pretty close.

[Steve Parr]

No Macro but I bet you can focus pretty close.

Hmmm... One of the lenses I looked at yesterday had macro, I just can't remember which one.

Oh, well, you know what that means: Back to the candy store...

:lol:

[Neilyb]

How much distortion does this lens show at each end? Anyone any examples?

[Dorman]

Steve, I know you must be in AGONY having to go back to the camera shop, I would be!

[JMAS]

Since you're back at the candy store, have you considered the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8? It has macro, though not real 1:1 Macro.

BTW, I have it only since Xmas but I am satisfied with it for nor. These are the kind of shots I made about a month ago on an outing not meant for photography, just a walk with the family:
http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=y441cx&outx=0&quality=70&noresize=1
http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=y4imk9&outx=0&quality=70&noresize=1

[Steve Parr]

Since you're back at the candy store, have you considered the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8? It has macro, though not real 1:1 Macro.

I'm really looking to go wider than 28mm, so I didn't look at that one...

[Photodawg1]

I got mine in October when I got my 20D and used it alot and love it. It is an all around versatile dependable dynamo that gets any job done in its range well. Since I have been going crazy over birds lately it hasn't seen much action. I suspect that will change when I start shooting local events in the spring fro the newspaper. I don't think you can go wrong with it.

[JMAS]

I'm really looking to go wider than 28mm, so I didn't look at that one...

:oops: sorry, I was adding to my post while you were answering....

[Photodawg1]

Also, if you are looking for wider I have the Tamron 11-35 which is a lot of fun, but don't see many people here comment on it.

[Photodawg1]

I think my 17-85 has a macro button on it.

[nitsch]

I think my 17-85 has a macro button on it.

What's all this talk of macro. Any lens with macro in the title (aside from the true macro primes) is usually just marketing bull. The 17-85 doesn't have a macro "setting" for want of a better word but the stat you should be interested in on any of these lenses if you want to do close up work is the max magnification. On the 17-85 it is 0.20x at the minimum focusing distance of 35cm when the lens it set to 85mm. If you get a set of extension tubes which are EF-S compatible you could explore "true" macro with this lens. Hope this helps! :D

[Photodawg1]

Nick, I haven't used it for that really, so wasn't sure. Good to know... I do want to get a true macro early summer hopefully.

[Ross McT.]

I picked up one used last week from Bruce Watson (potn member) and am quite happy with this lens so far.
The range is what drew me into this guy (27-136)... more practical than a17-40 (27-64) in my eyes.
IS is always amazing. This is the second lens that I've bought with it and am glad that I did. Sure a lower fstop would be nice, but I rarely use a lens below f4 anyways.

Watch the market place, there are lots of people selling them off so that they can "upgrade" to a L. Personally I don't see the need for the L other than bragging rights.

Fstopjojo is rather happy using this lens. That should say something.

[Mike Bell]

It shows the detail of a battle of CDS and Belmondo (full beard) leading a charge against the Trolls and Spammers at the gates of POTN :-)
1/6 second, f/4, ISO 800, hand held. No flash.


I knew those guys were old ...... but THAT old!!! :lol: :lol:

Well done with the handheld shot at 1/6 sec. I would have said you were fibbing if I hadn't tried out my 17-85 in low light with the IS. I found that with the IS turned on I could handhold reliably down to 1/10 to 1/13 sec - with the IS turned off the same shot was useless.

[ibdb]

I've been eyeing this lens as well. And I'm wondering how it handles indoors under ambient lighting (basically with the room lights on, not dark rooms). I hate using a flash when snapping candids at family gatheringa or frineds parties.
I really like using mine under those conditions. I took a bunch (120+) pictures the day my youngest son was born using the 17-85 almost exclusively. Hospital room lighting is poor, but I didn't want flash shadows everywhere, and didn't want to use flash with a newborn. The zoom let me work from wherever I found a place, and didn't force me to move myself to frame a shot. I was very happy with my results.

[picturecrazy]

I have one and I LOVE it. I just bought a 24-70 F2.8L on saturday and was surprised that it was no sharper than my 17-85. I ran two days full of tests on and off tripods, inside, outside, etc... For outside, you can't beat this lens for the price. There is also much less chromatic abberation on my 17-85 at ALL apertures.

As for the dark, the IS is really nice as I routinely take handheld photos down to 1/8 of a second with great results. I guess my hands are shaky or something because I could not get dark handheld images as sharp or clean on the 24-70 unless I was over 1/100. I am returning the 24-70 and keeping the 17-85.

IS is killer. Try it and see for yourself.

[Dorman]

Steve, I say go for it, the 17-85 IS seems like a great lens.
Other options, Sigma 17-70, Canon 17-40L...

Any of those would pair up well with your current list!

[hooookup]

Steve, I strongly recommend staying away from the 17-85. Spend your money wisely and stick with the 17-40. I had nothing but problems with the 17-85. At 17mm the vignetting was horrible. I ended up returning it and getting the 17-40 and haven't looked back.

[Airedale1]

I really like mine. Here's two images I took last week with it.

[Steve Parr]

Steve, I strongly recommend staying away from the 17-85. Spend your money wisely and stick with the 17-40. I had nothing but problems with the 17-85. At 17mm the vignetting was horrible. I ended up returning it and getting the 17-40 and haven't looked back.

Is it possible that you had a copy that had issues?

You're the first person to mention the vignetting...

[hooookup]

Is it possible that you had a copy that had issues?

You're the first person to mention the vignetting...

It's very possible that the lens was the issue. However, looking back on the purchase in retrospect I made the right decision with the 17-40. I really like the build quality of the 17-40 over the 17-85 as the 17-85 felt too much like the kit lens. Wide open on the 17-85 I experienced vignetting but when I stopped down a bit it seemed to disappear. If you plan on sticking with the 20D for awhile then the 17-85 might be the better bet for you. But if you eventually want to upgrade to a 1 series body then go with the 17-40. My .02

[Dorman]

Airedale1 - Great shots, very vibrant and crisp!

Steve, if you haven't already, read the reviews at fredmiranda - some people mentioned barrell distortion at the wide end, very few talked about vignetting - the lens gets excellent reviews and rightfully so.

[Steve Parr]

It's very possible that the lens was the issue. However, looking back on the purchase in retrospect I made the right decision with the 17-40. I really like the build quality of the 17-40 over the 17-85 as the 17-85 felt too much like the kit lens. Wide open on the 17-85 I experienced vignetting but when I stopped down a bit it seemed to disappear. If you plan on sticking with the 20D for awhile then the 17-85 might be the better bet for you. But if you eventually want to upgrade to a 1 series body then go with the 17-40. My .02

Honestly, I don't see getting a 1-Series anytime in the foreseeable future. I just bought the 20D a couple of months ago and, frankly, I can't justify the expense of a 1-Series. When I make my first mortgage payment with the 20D, I'll consider the 1-Series.

I thought the construction of the lens was far and above that of the kit lens. The 17-40mm is, certainly, a fine lens. I'm just thinking I might want the zoom range to be a little longer if I'm looking for a walk-around...

[vchavez]

Would like to know if it's ok the 17-85mm IS 4-5.6 ? for doing concerts photos or
better going for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS ? could the 17-85 make a good job with those extra stops with the IS ?

[blacksmurf]

Would like to know if it's ok the 17-85mm IS 4-5.6 ? for doing concerts photos or
better going for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS ? could the 17-85 make a good job with those extra stops with the IS ?

17-85 IS? If the stage has *great* lights, maybe. But for most of concerts I've had to shot at, f4 is really too slow...

[Mike Bell]

17-85 IS? If the stage has *great* lights, maybe. But for most of concerts I've had to shot at, f4 is really too slow...

I just did a concert shoot and I left my 17-85 at home. All the decent shots were taken at f2.8 with my 60 and 150 primes. I got one keeper with my 10-22 at f3.5. The 17-85 is a daylight lens or for indoor static subjects. The IS is great but it can't freeze moving performers!

[Ross McT.]

Fstopjojo is going to be selling his for the new efs17-55is f2.8. You could probably pick up his one at a decent price in the not too distant future.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=142830

[RuggerJoe]

I just blew my tax refund. Finally decided to just go with my original instinct and get the 17-85 IS. I had a little left over so I figured what the hell and grabbed a 580ex flash too. Hopefully my refund will get here befor my credit card bill does. :)

Now why isn't the brown truck here yet?

[Steve Parr]

Would like to know if it's ok the 17-85mm IS 4-5.6 ? for doing concerts photos or
better going for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS ? could the 17-85 make a good job with those extra stops with the IS ?

All of my concert shots are done with either the 85mm f/1.8 (my personal Holy Grail) or the 70-200mm f/2.8L. F/4, even with IS, isn't really going to cut it for performance photography, even under better than average lighting.

As I've got my concert needs covered, the 17-85mm looks like it may be a way for me to go. For you, though, I'd probably recommend a faster lens. That said, I think 17-55mm is going to be too short a focal length for that...

[darktiger]

How is this compared to the 24-105 L IS?

[Skip Souza]

Wider and less expensive for sure. I would think the 24-105 would be more handy on a full frame.