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

[cali]

I am curious to know what kind of results it produces. I have noticed that it lacks sharpness and does not perform under low light. If you do have some good shots with it then I know it is not the lens but because of my failure to set it up correctly. Please post some sample pics that you have taken with the 17-85.

[JohnnyBlood]

I think it is a fine lens. Here are three examples of photographs I have taken with the Canon 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM:

http://static.flickr.com/41/97017183_19685f6842.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/40/94974992_fa5d5701df.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/24/56015612_33fb73f290.jpg

Full-size versions of these photographs and other photographs taken with my Canon 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM can be seen here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/tags/efs1785mmf456isusm

[cali]

Todd, I didn't know you lingered around here. I don't know if you remember me but I was the guy who asked you to show your work on flickr with the 17-85. I like your results. I cannot seem to get the sharpness and punch to my pictures that you do. My username on flickr is dmarkj22 so if you get a chance then look up my pictures and let me know what you think. What do you have your parameters set to? I remember that you said that all you used was Elements for PP. What do you do to your pics in PP?

[JohnnyBlood]

Virtually every photograph I capture is done so using the RAW mode. I also set the camera to Parameter 1. However, I also use Photoshop Elements 4.0 for post-processing, as well as the Noise Ninja plug-in. By learning how to properly white balance photographs when taking them, adjust the color, saturation and contrast using levels in Photoshop Elements 4.0, and occaisionally using layers to enhance an image, I have learned how to make many of my 20D images pop. Alas, there is still much to learn.

[ed rader]

Johnnyblood -- you have a good eye. i always enjoy your stuph :cool: .

ed rader

[JohnnyBlood]

Thanks, Rader, I appreciate that very much. I'm still learning about the wonderful world of light and color and I have a long way to go.

[blacksmurf]

Thanks JohnnyBlood, you convinced me to always carry the 17-85IS for my walk-arounds, even if I'm fascinated by the primes.

[In2Photos]

Need some more examples for the lens archive. Come on folks, post those pics.

[OdiN1701]

I am curious to know what kind of results it produces. I have noticed that it lacks sharpness and does not perform under low light. If you do have some good shots with it then I know it is not the lens but because of my failure to set it up correctly. Please post some sample pics that you have taken with the 17-85.

Here is one I took with that lens in Death Valley.

http://www.andrewstiff.com/gallery/deva/images/moonovermountains.jpg



Actually...if you go here:

http://www.andrewstiff.com/gallery/deva

Most of those were with the 17-85. Most are not thoroughly post-processed (the above was..just not the highest quality JPG). Some were taken with a 50mm f/1.4 but I don't remember which exactly. Anyway there are some good pictures, some not so good, but the quality of the lens is good. I sold mine in order to go with L glass and I decided that I'm not going to get EF-S mounts in case I move to a full frame camera here...which I want to do. Although, if I did and kept my 20D as backup, the 17-85mm would make a good permanent fixture to it so I may pick one up again if that happens.

[Hephaistos]

hello,

here are some shots done withe the 17-85, hope it helps !

http://artforge.free.fr/absolut/mouette-seule.jpg

http://artforge.free.fr/absolut/retouche-ciel2.jpg

http://artforge.free.fr/photos/18.jpg



;)

[stetner]

FYI I was having trouble with some of my shots. Then tested my 17-85 as follows:

at 17mm:
focus on something very close.
focus on something ar about 3m
focus on infinity
focus on the same thing at 3m

Try at say 50mm and 85.

I found my lens would focus differently depending if it came from infinity or from close up. It would be at a visibly different distance. IE when focusing on that object 3m away, in one case it would focus at 1.5 on the ring, from the other side it would sit at 3m.

Sent it away and they listed 'clean, focus adjust' and it is working great now.

In other words, do a bit of testing to see if you can see what is going on....

Doug

[Bakewell]

Try these with the NEW 30D.....

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/eos_30d-review/gallery.shtml

[Airedale1]

I have noticed that it lacks sharpness and does not perform under low light. If you do have some good shots with it then I know it is not the lens but because of my failure to set it up correctly.

I find it to be quite sharp and versatile.

[Airedale1]

and 2 more..........

[Richkiddy]

I am curious to know what kind of results it produces. I have noticed that it lacks sharpness and does not perform under low light. If you do have some good shots with it then I know it is not the lens but because of my failure to set it up correctly. Please post some sample pics that you have taken with the 17-85.

OK, Just got my first DSLR, 20D with this lens, and here is my first posting of any pic to any internet group. My local church the other morning.

Needed some work, as barrel distortion is quite a bit at 17mm, and has some aberration which I think my Fuji S9500 didn't have. A great camera the Fuji, and would recommend highly (1cm macro too!), but been asked to do a wedding and it's just not flexible and fast enough for that kind of photography.

[The Ghost of FM]

I just picked up my 17-85 IS USM today and tried a couple indoors and outdoors and I think I agree with the original thread starter member, that it is a bit weak/slow under lower lighting conditions? But, I loved the over all quality of it compared to what came with my Rebel XT's kit lens.;)

Cheers! :)

[Pete]

Gives pretty good bokeh too...
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a294/peteghia/Scotland-2006/IMG_1890.jpg

100% crop, no sharpening
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a294/peteghia/IMG_1890.jpg

[Southswede]

Here is one I took this other night, while I was working.....The IS is very nice.

ISO: 1600
f stop: 4.0
Shutter: 1/10
WB: Auto
Focal Length: 17.0

[cali]

I take back what I've said about this lens. I've managed to get some pretty decent resulst from it. I still am going to get the 24-105 to replace this as my walkaround.http://static.flickr.com/80/225731645_1f065db88c.jpg

[dailykimchi]

any more pics guys?

[bufferbure1]

This lens is so sharp at 85mm, here are some photos at 85mm f5.6:
http://static.flickr.com/74/214499370_5f6005b285.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/120/257975184_5fa29cfd74.jpg?v=0

[Neilyb]

May be a bit soft due to compression, but printed at 16x12 these shots look great.

http://www.neilyb.de/nbdesign/photography/misc/mallerstang.jpg

http://www.neilyb.de/nbdesign/photography/misc/hellgill.jpg

http://www.neilyb.de/nbdesign/photography/misc/ingletonDusk.jpg

[quincy1008]

and 2 more..........
Wow, those are fantastic shots

[sparksdjs]

Some shots I took during a trip to England this summer. These are street performers on the South Bank of The Thames. This is a great travel lens.

Dave

[cali]

I also take back what I said about this lens not being able to perform under low light. This was taken at F5.6, 1/6 of a second and ISO 800 handheld. The IS really helps.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/163/332945106_8881deafd1.jpg

[cvc9216]

I just got this lens, here a pic I snapped today around the house. I'm going to Santa Barbara tomorrow so hopefully I'll get some good picture opportunities

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v99/cvc9216/volk.jpg

[poah]

benifits of a small light lens with IS. 40mph in the boot of a car 1/6s handhell :D

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/110/284501516_bfdf54c91a_o.jpg


1/13 out a window

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/113/284502991_188f6a4924_o.jpg

[cvc9216]

nice! I have to try that. Is that with the 17-55 lens? I don't see the 17-85 in your sig

[K_AMJ]

Close-up:
http://www.pbase.com/k_amj/image/56642276
http://www.pbase.com/k_amj/image/56642474

Portrait:
http://www.pbase.com/k_amj/image/56955417
http://www.pbase.com/k_amj/image/71180601

Landscape:
http://www.pbase.com/k_amj/image/56777161
http://www.pbase.com/k_amj/image/60369740

Low light condition:
http://www.pbase.com/k_amj/image/56677280[/URL]
http://www.pbase.com/k_amj/image/56673016 (http://www.pbase.com/k_amj/image/56777161)

With Extension Tubes:
[URL]http://www.pbase.com/k_amj/image/69674248

[poah]

nice! I have to try that. Is that with the 17-55 lens? I don't see the 17-85 in your sig


don't have 17-85 anymore

[Ukuleleman]

I bought this lens with my camera because I had read such bad stuff about the 18-55 Kit lens, then I discovered that they said the same things about the 17-85, so, before I took a picture I was disheartened and had no faith in either lens. I now know better, if you work at it and think about what you are doing, the 18-55 can be a terrific lens and here are a few from the 17-85, which is now my 'Walkabout lens', all you have to do is get out and work with your tools instead of moaning about how bad they are, we have a saying here in the UK and no doubt you have something similar:- "A bad workman always blames his tools". the 17-85 is a good lens and will give you quality images if you know how to work your camera. I am merely a beginner, I only got my 400D in Jan of this year(2007) so I am still on a steep learning curve, but being encouraged by decent snaps instead of discouraged before I begin by 'Whinging workmen who can't cut the mustard'.
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n220/Ukuleleman_2006/Transport/Train4.jpg
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n220/Ukuleleman_2006/Transport/17851.jpg
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n220/Ukuleleman_2006/Miscellaneous/Flag4.jpg
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n220/Ukuleleman_2006/Flowers/redleaves1.jpg
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n220/Ukuleleman_2006/Flowers/redleaves2.jpg

[synapxe]

"A bad workman always blames his tools"

I also did the same and blamed the 18-55 lens before giving it a chance. After listening to my bitching my girlfriend was nice enough and got me the 17-85 lens for Christmas, to my surprise I found the reviews were also negative on the 17-85. Well, I was very quickly proved wrong, as the 17-85 takes great pictures, this just makes me think that the 18-55 could also have been a great lens had I give it the chance. Either way, here are some pics that I took using the 17-85, all these pictures were taken with low light, not using a tripod but handheld!

http://w2.bikepics.com/pics/2007%5C01%5C05%5Cbikepics-763451-full.jpg

http://w2.bikepics.com/pics/2007%5C01%5C05%5Cbikepics-763466-full.jpg

http://w2.bikepics.com/pics/2007%5C01%5C05%5Cbikepics-763465-full.jpg

[Dan GSR]

subway no flash

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v519/dangsr/nyc/IMG_0183med.jpg

[Ukuleleman]

(Quote) 'I also did the same and blamed the 18-55 lens before giving it a chance'

I bought my camera with the 18-55 thrown in but also bought the 17-85 at the same time because I believed the 18-55 to be 'rubbish', or 'crap' as someone on this forum so delicately and inaccurately put it, so I now have both of them, as well as 1 L glass and a couple of other classy lenses, so I know the difference between a budget lens and what to me is an expensive lens such as the L, nevertheless I am still taking pictures with both the 18-55 and the 17-85 and getting quality results... Nice bike by the way, I have been a biker all my life (I am in the silver surfer category now) but ill health forced me to sell my 'baby', a Honda XBR 500 single pot, twin exhausts, I wouldn't mind a thrash on that beast of yours though!
Here's a couple of mine with a close crop to demo how good this lens is, I am growing in confidence with it and it is my 'walkaround', although it now has some heavy competition with my 17-40 f4L and 24-70 f2.8L which I have only had for a couple of days now.

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n220/Ukuleleman_2006/Transport/17852.jpg

[Ukuleleman]

Hey Dan GSR.
This is an absolute crackin' shot, what a great opportunity well taken for the utmost in 'Candid', I see you entitle it 'Subway, no flash' I guess if you really wanted a flash the gentleman would have obliged! but you might not have been able to post it!

[synapxe]

(Quote) 'I also did the same and blamed the 18-55 lens before giving it a chance'

I bought my camera with the 18-55 thrown in but also bought the 17-85 at the same time because I believed the 18-55 to be 'rubbish', or 'crap' as someone on this forum so delicately and inaccurately put it, so I now have both of them, as well as 1 L glass and a couple of other classy lenses, so I know the difference between a budget lens and what to me is an expensive lens such as the L, nevertheless I am still taking pictures with both the 18-55 and the 17-85 and getting quality results... Nice bike by the way, I have been a biker all my life (I am in the silver surfer category now) but ill health forced me to sell my 'baby', a Honda XBR 500 single pot, twin exhausts, I wouldn't mind a thrash on that beast of yours though!

I can only wish those bike to be mine, those are actually a friends. I was just the one taking the pictures :D

[DerekI]

Leica camers at camera museum in Bangkok .Thailand.

[DerekI]

Leica M6 black and a couple of indian boxes.

Both were taken in a very dark room ,handheld noflash.

[Man_Of_News]

This is my first post, but I thought I'd weigh in. The 17-85 is a great lens, for the money (paid ~ $500 on Amazon). It's got its weaknesses, but when you know what those are and compensate for them in your shooting, you can get pretty good results. I've been happy, anyway.

Here are a couple of shots I've taken:

http://www.geocities.com/jadedinkslinger/images/journalpics/20070425_Delorean.jpg
Obviously this was pretty late at night. I think I used a 25 second exposure or something long like that.

http://www.geocities.com/jadedinkslinger/images/journalpics/20070421_Panther_Refuge2.jpg
Pretty good detail up close.

[mattgold]

Some of the better shots from my first trip with 17-85;

(100% crop, original scaled)

[mattgold]

And a couple more

(scaled down original, 100% crop)

[4walls]

Here is one, slightly post processed. I find this to be a good lens, maybe not the sharpest in the lineup, but good lens nonetheless.

[carbonXevo8]

has anyone noticed this lens vingetting on a 30d @17mm?

[RodneyCyr]

I took the first picture in the Paris Metro: Canon 300D, 17-85mm IS @17mm, f/9. I took the second picture in the D'Orsey Museum, also in Paris: same camera and lens @58mm, f/5.6. I used ISO 1600 for both, and used DXO v4 to post-process them with the software's default paramaters.

Sorry, I did not make a note of the artist's name for the second shot.

[tdodd]

has anyone noticed this lens vingetting on a 30d @17mm?
Definitely there is some in test shots but in real world photos I rarely notice it, or at least don't see it as a problem. Here is a photo at 17mm F4.0 and 17mm F11....

[DerekI]

In practice , this is the best walk-around lens in Canon APS-C selection, the IS is a must and the IS is really effective in a museum or in an art center shooting paints or like that.

Some say use a tripod , well, it can not be easy some times.
Most of Italian museums and libraries I visited last summer did not allow me to use my tripod there. So, how you can compare the effectiveIS and powerful USM producing real life practicality of this lens with a teeny bit better optics of the Tamron 17-50?

What I can not really understand is many rank this lower than the Sigma 17-70, which is completely useless lens in low light(not very fast without IS) ?

In real life , in real low light , the f2.8 of those third party lenses are completely useless(the Sigma is even not a constant f2.8 lens) , while the IS allows you to go down to as slow as 1/4th or even slower some times with proper holding technique. Actually, people say the Sigma 17-70 is faster than this is wrong , this lens is a 2 stop faster lens than the Sigma in real life at least for static subjects because the IS allows you using 3 or 4 stops slower shutter speed than with the Sigma at the same focal length.

Also, the optical qaulity of this lens is not as bad as many guys say about it without testing or comparing it with others. I M(not so humble)O, it 's got at least better IQ than that of the Sigma esp at longer end of it(from 50 to 85 this lens is as sharp as most primes).

Maybe the Tamron has slightly more resolving power but only with a tripod and below 40mm , after 40 mm , this lens is sharper than the Tamron at least my copy.

I am looking foward to comparing this with my new Sigma 18-50 macro.

Eventually, I will get the 17-55IS but I won't sell this lens , this is a great lens even with the vignetting , the 17-55 or 10-22 vignettes as well any way.

According to cameralab.com , this lens resolves more than the 17-55 and 10-22 at least at center(2150 horizontal VS 2050).

http://www.cameralabs.com/features/Canon400D_lens_upgrade/page4.shtml

[DerekI]

they were taken in rain.

[tdodd]

I agree that IS is a great feature and I do like my 17-85 but IS cannot stop subject motion or generate a narrow DOF, for wedding photography, for example, so there is definitely value in a wide aperture as well. That's why the 17-55 is on my shopping list too.

Here's a sample of a handheld shot taking full advantage of IS. I'm not sure quite what the shutter speed was as Lightroom says 1/2 second, IExif says 1/3 second and both DPP and Zoombrowser say 0.4 seconds but whatever the figure this would not have been possible without the IS (or a tripod).

http://www.easytiger.plus.com/photos/20070426_080541.jpg

I just thought I'd add another example, this time hand held at 0.6 seconds.

http://www.easytiger.plus.com/photos/20070428_182928.jpg

[DerekI]

flowers in rain , the lens was wet when I shot them , so a bit hazy.
it's rainy season here and so I can not have a good day.

[Jeff2909]

I just picked up a new 20d and the 17-85 IS. I love it and the 20d. One of my fist pics

[Fobby_Monkey]

can't say my best, but recent...

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/6023/img0348oe9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
and...
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/8247/img0593pd0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[sparksdjs]

This lens is great. Some street performers on the South Bank of the Thames from last summer:

http://k53.pbase.com/o4/61/4161/1/65388420.pRbA2yLb.tempwebIMG_572801.jpg

http://k53.pbase.com/o4/61/4161/1/65388424.4erGiHPx.tempwebIMG_579001.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/o4/61/4161/1/65388427.kOi8BSPN.tempwebIMG_581501.jpg

http://k41.pbase.com/o4/61/4161/1/65388426.05D0uF01.tempwebIMG_580801.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/o4/61/4161/1/65388429.5rDCDsSH.tempwebIMG_658101.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/o4/61/4161/1/65388423.m5bNjnNq.tempwebIMG_573901.jpg

http://k43.pbase.com/o4/61/4161/1/65388425.paXzy5sW.tempwebIMG_580501.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/o4/61/4161/1/65388428.9RaP0Nic.tempwebIMG_657401.jpg

Dave

[HotFuzz]

I just bought me a Canon 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM 2nd hand in mint condition that is arriving tomorrow from a very good seller on anotehr forum.
Managed to get it for £225 and cant wait to get it.
Going to use this as my first lens out of the bag, then if needs be go for another.
Just wanted a decent lens with a zoom that i can use as a "walkabout lens".

Hope to post some pics soon as there are some great examples here

:D

[DerekI]

1 a chinese temple.
2 a chinese temple.

[DerekI]

1 yap temple shot with Tamron 17-50 , just to compare it with the second one, not in the same day nor in the same condition .

2 Yap temple shot with Canon EF-S17-85IS , not taken in the same day , nor in the same condition but I was there for only 3 days so could not wait until rain stopped.

[DerekI]

1 Penang local people .
2 Cititel Penang.

[DerekI]

Why all pictures became diffrent , it is odd , whenever posing pics here , all pictures become oddly less sharp than when I see them on my flcikr and my lap top.

[DerekI]

1 the new BKK airport
2 a sushi bar in the new BKK airport

[DerekI]

pictures become de-saturated while uploading them so odd.

[DerekI]

Chrysanthemums.

[DerekI]

1 hibiscus in rain.
2 chrysanthemum (yellow and red)..

[Reservoir_Dog]

What do u guys think about this shot?
This is a testshot outside a store, when i had my 20D and putted a 17-85 on it.

Must say that i have worked on this pic, but the sharpness is quite good isnt it?
I am going on a vacation, i have a couple very good lenses, like the 17-40L, 24-70L and a 50mm 1.4, i hear you guys think: "why does he even bother with the 17-85"...

I wanted to get this lens for vacation pics, should i get it or take my other lenses with me?

Greetings!

http://users.telenet.be/reservoir.dog/Harley.jpg

[LuckyRobJ]

The 17-85 is probably my most used lens and I've had a lot of good shots with it. It's been a great walkaround, though in the city I could use a little wider (thinking of getting the 10-22). So far it's been great for landscapes, here's an example.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/94/221639934_ff9bf94e0d_b.jpg

[Raymate]

benifits of a small light lens with IS. 40mph in the boot of a car 1/6s handhell :D

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/110/284501516_bfdf54c91a_o.jpg


1/13 out a window

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/113/284502991_188f6a4924_o.jpg

Cool...

[bufferbure1]

I had travelled with my 1785 alot, to be honest, i find wide end more useful than the tele end. However, there are some occuation where 85mm is nice to have for landscape. Of course 18-200 is best for travel.

IS is adorable and useful for nighttime and indoor portraits and have the background expose properly.

What do u guys think about this shot?
This is a testshot outside a store, when i had my 20D and putted a 17-85 on it.

Must say that i have worked on this pic, but the sharpness is quite good isnt it?
I am going on a vacation, i have a couple very good lenses, like the 17-40L, 24-70L and a 50mm 1.4, i hear you guys think: "why does he even bother with the 17-85"...

I wanted to get this lens for vacation pics, should i get it or take my other lenses with me?

Greetings!

[Fobby_Monkey]

how I miss this thread..

http://members.shaw.ca/pyman/cp/mtwell.jpg

http://members.shaw.ca/pyman/cp/hobart.jpg

[4walls]

Here is one from a wedding I shot this summer.

[gldelx]

a couple with my 17-85. I get some serious vignetting at 17mm - 50mm or so. With any sort of filter attached, vignetting all the way thru 85mm :confused: More in the upper right corner than the others.

click to enlarge any

my neice
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1148/1244965813_d6b2cf160f.jpg (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1148/1244965813_d6b2cf160f_b.jpg)

Cougar with HDR processing
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1060/1345308408_bb168b9bf9.jpg?v=0 (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1060/1345308408_bb168b9bf9_b.jpg)

rosie
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1199/1239059742_4cdd6fbfd7.jpg?v=0 (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1199/1239059742_4cdd6fbfd7_b.jpg)

[Dave M]

Time and time again I have been repeatedly impresssed by this lens. It is on my camera most of the time and is a fantastic walkaround lens.

Here's a picture I recently took while walking around Pike's Place Market in Seattle with the family. There was an incredible display of colors and peppers hanging from many of the shops as you can see.

204253

and here's the 100% crop
204252

As you can see, this lens can perform fairly well.

[Bas]

http://www.bassius.nl/Pics/Cross/Day%202/images/IMG_5274.jpg

[71sbeetle]

here are a few of mine, click on the link below the picture to see a higher res version:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1204/1349041975_c2917e6d8f.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1204/1349041975_8305f55cbb_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1198/1349933934_6e9bf9e80e.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1198/1349933934_bdc61f5a6f_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1360/1349042385_b409377de0.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1360/1349042385_8b7100facd_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1159/1349042507_8b999cb371.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1159/1349042507_2655b1964c_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1298/1349934876_1ec0b75e35.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1298/1349934876_6343e8a886_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1089/1349043131_2ba0d5efe6.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1089/1349043131_183e848e82_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1193/1349043409_5129a9aeba.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1193/1349043409_b6afa84210_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1273/1209733144_d973824fe7.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1273/1209733144_a35a43d712_o.jpg

[bufferbure1]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1119/1349393856_26456209bb_o.jpg

[Lightstream]

1/20 sec handheld. That stabilizer really does work.
http://pix.lightrefineries.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=3905&g2_serialNumber=2

Even better, 1/6 sec at 38mm!
http://pix.lightrefineries.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=3908&g2_serialNumber=2

[spicer]

i find it to be a nice little lens, much better than the 18-55 or 75-300 IQ wise anyway

[AndySix]

This is really a good lence. Have it with me all the time. At least untill I got the 24-70L which just arrived.

http://www.andycam.no/albums/DB9/IMG_3030-01.jpg

http://www.andycam.net/albums/gtv2005/andypic.jpg

http://www.andycam.net/albums/m3vsgt3/IMG_0636_01.jpg

http://www.andycam.no/albums/california06/IMG_9481.jpg

Handheld:
http://www.andycam.no/albums/california06/IMG_9551.jpg

Also handheld:
http://www.andycam.no/albums/Florida07/aImg_0884.jpg

http://www.andycam.no/albums/thai06/Img_7203.jpg

[MegaPutzel]

Nice pics Andy!

Wow that last one..

[LAB]

First shots with my new 17-85

[p360]

Here is one. Handheld. No crop.
226673

[p360]

And one more.

226679

[who_am_i]

And one more.

226679

Nice beamer!

[p360]

Nice beamer!

Thanks.

[AussieCat]

wow

i hear about it but never do it

use identical layers to enhance the imag.

is this a great effect u think?

do u actually createa whole new identical layer?


Virtually every photograph I capture is done so using the RAW mode. I also set the camera to Parameter 1. However, I also use Photoshop Elements 4.0 for post-processing, as well as the Noise Ninja plug-in. By learning how to properly white balance photographs when taking them, adjust the color, saturation and contrast using levels in Photoshop Elements 4.0, and occaisionally using layers to enhance an image, I have learned how to make many of my 20D images pop. Alas, there is still much to learn.

[gordoon]

One from Christmas night...

[SuperBet]

I received this lens the other week and in the weekend I went out to test it.

Some photos:

http://static.flickr.com/2304/2172618325_24248b141d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/superbet/2172618325/)

http://static.flickr.com/2402/2173405198_c565350bdf.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/superbet/2173405198/)

Some candids (they are people that were taking photos with me):

http://static.flickr.com/2420/2173438384_f913a09664.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/superbet/2173438384/)

http://static.flickr.com/2246/2172651017_afac278148.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/superbet/2172651017/)

[windwatcher]

I just reluctantly picked up one of these lens, looking for a good all-around lens with IS. Got a good deal and it is now in the mail. Reluctant about my purchase, yes, but after seeing these photos, I am really impressed (both the lens and the photogs!) This thread has lots of low inside light and twilight shots. I shall not be disappointed!

[soejatono]

my first shot with EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

[lookingforaname]

anyone here have any indoor shots with this lens? especially indoor people shots?

thanks!

[loony33]

anyone here have any indoor shots with this lens? especially indoor people shots?

thanks!

I like this lens - was my first and I did have fun with it. I am thinking of selling it now for something wide.

Some indoor shots.

[lostmytoy]

Here mine from car show last week.

ISO 800 F6.3 1/60
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3015/2281391159_299f1d61e1.jpg

ISO 800 F5.6 1/60
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2411/2282197272_13655675fa.jpg

[Max F]

Here's some of mine. Very versatile lens for those, like me, who have no clue what they are going to take pictures of half the time!

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p124/LoMax13/IMG_08422.jpg

Needed some fill flash on this one:
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p124/LoMax13/IMG_11302-1.jpg

Trout lilies
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p124/LoMax13/IMG_12762.jpg

[JS4KIKZ]

Here are just a few of many that I have, taken on my 40D

http://js4kikz.smugmug.com/photos/258477900_idZPF-L.jpg
http://js4kikz.smugmug.com/photos/258478972_N2ACV-L.jpg
http://js4kikz.smugmug.com/photos/258481130_iFa7y-L.jpg

[Daniel2000]

here some of mines taken at an Auto Show in january
all hand held, love the IS

ISO200, f/4, 1/13sec
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh26/Daniel2000/salon%20auto%202008/_MG_3682-3683Panorama1.jpg

ISO200, f/4, 1/20sec
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh26/Daniel2000/salon%20auto%202008/_MG_3653.jpg

ISO200, f/5.6, 1/50sec
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh26/Daniel2000/salon%20auto%202008/_MG_3649.jpg

ISO200, f/5.6, 1/8sec
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh26/Daniel2000/salon%20auto%202008/_MG_3646.jpg

ISO200, f/4, 1/8sec
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh26/Daniel2000/salon%20auto%202008/_MG_3632.jpg

ISO500, f4.5, 1/40sec
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh26/Daniel2000/salon%20auto%202008/_MG_3955.jpg

[guitarman2977]

The beer bottle is one of the first pictures I took when I pulled the lens out of the box. I was impressed with the sharpness considering that was handheld at 1/15 of a second. I still have a lot to learn but think this lens has potential. The IS is great!

[guitarman2977]

One more from the 17-85... I went out to shoot trees in the snow and this ended up being may favorite shot as I headed back to the car.

[MLphoto]

Here are some pictures i have taken in the last week.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2355/2424866154_788ede5092_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3204/2424051697_582c5c6ea0_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2364/2424716488_d48361cd09_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2284/2423893585_806d1f4316_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2378/2412709572_1c1c3255da_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3093/2373474698_b3b46b2733_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3067/2424718808_7618dfd0b1_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2371/2423906805_f993a70310_b.jpg

[xairsoft808x]

memorial day in hawaii

[BrigCA61]

Jack Russell Terriers racing at the JRTCA Trial and Dog Show.
ISO 1600 - f/6.3 - 1/800 sec. - cropped to 50% of original image.
276838


This old church, in Bodega Bay, California, had a brief appearance in Alfred Hitchcock's 1963 classic thriller, "The Birds" and later became famous as a subject for Ansel Adams.
ISO 400 - f/11
276839

[Mintam]

Here's a picture i took today I was really surprised,
1/80th of a second, ISO 200, F10.

[Daniel2000]

2 pics I took yesterday at an air show

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh26/Daniel2000/Air%20show%20400e%20Quebec/_MG_9819.jpg

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh26/Daniel2000/Air%20show%20400e%20Quebec/_MG_9879.jpg

[sparksdjs]

A couple from the Seattle Center on my new 40D (moved up from XT):

http://www.pbase.com/sparksdjs/image/97358598/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/sparksdjs/image/97358583/original.jpg

Dave

[demar727]

how is this lense for weddings?

[Daniel2000]

I'd say, not fast enough
I personnaly going to get a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for that, I have the wedding of a friend this summer, and from my experience in difficult lighting, it's not fast enough unless you boost the ISO to max and then you have too much noise...
good in good lighting condition like outdoors

[tdodd]

how is this lense for weddings?
I shot an entire wedding with a 30D and 580EX flash and the 17-85 lens. I don't know whether you'd consider the results acceptable, but the bride and groom were very pleased with them. The album is here.

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/EezyTiger/200610_Kim_and_Andy_Wedding

I was a guest at the wedding and I shot these purely as an amateur, which is all that I was, and still am. There was no pro hired for the day so I just did the best I could for them. Here's a sample....

http://lh3.ggpht.com/EezyTiger/R_gN5xa7e5I/AAAAAAAAj-g/XpvNFcPMzTE/s800/20061006_112835_DPP_7.JPG http://lh4.ggpht.com/EezyTiger/R_gaWBa7kfI/AAAAAAAAkts/HdkDMOT6BIc/s800/20061006_172103_DPP_7.JPG

[xairsoft808x]

I shot an entire wedding with a 30D and 580EX flash and the 17-85 lens. I don't know whether you'd consider the results acceptable, but the bride and groom were very pleased with them. The album is here.

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/EezyTiger/200610_Kim_and_Andy_Wedding

I was a guest at the wedding and I shot these purely as an amateur, which is all that I was, and still am. There was no pro hired for the day so I just did the best I could for them.

yup i did the same. the wedding that i did some shooting at had tons of light comming thru the ceiling and it was like lunch time. it all depends on what kind of light you are going to have at the wedding. i had a 30d, 17-85, 85 1.8, and 550ex. it was myy first day out with the new camera so i felt pretty good with the results. i think a flash ranks 1st in my book for weddings then fast glass and then a good hi iso camera.

[single_track]

a couple of travel shots with my 17-85

[Tubthumper]

Hmm. A mate at work has just got a 40D kit, with this and the 55-250 IS lenses. Now he wants to replace the 17-85 with the 17-55 IS, and has offered me the 17-85 for £240. I'm normally a very decisive person, but I'm just not so sure. My old kit lense has definitely frustrated me once too often recently. How does image quality compare with the old 17-55 kit lense?

[xairsoft808x]

take a look around this thread and trhe 17-55 and see what you think. personally, the 17-55 would be my choice if you do any type of low light photography. the 17-85 has one of the best walk-around ranges for an efs. stop it down and you cant tell the diffrence.

[noodle_snacks]

Here are some of mine:
17mm:
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/4175/img1529nv0.jpg
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/4636/img1545xq8.jpg
http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/7247/img4241234jd9.jpg
85mm:
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/986/picture018iy1.jpg

I sold mine for a sigma 10-22 and a 18-55mm IS and haven't looked back though. The 17-85 has some CA and barrel distortion at it's widest setting, where I used it most, and i have a 70-200 which covers the telephoto end anyway. The 18-55mm IS is similar in image quality but you lose build quality and USM.

[Tubthumper]

I had my heart set on a Tamron 28-75 f2.8, which I can get new for the same money. To be honest, I think I'd prefer the constant f2.8 and Tammy's reputation for sharpness, even though it's shorter/narrower, and doesn't have the IS. Just me, I guess.

[p360]

Here are a couple from the past weekend:

292723

292724

[p360]

And two more:

292726

292725

[GeologyROCKS]

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b345/Undergr0undAssassins/OT%20Stuff/birk.jpg

[GeologyROCKS]

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b345/Undergr0undAssassins/OT%20Stuff/shed2.jpg

[p360]

Some more:

293261

293260

[JNowakPhoto]

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b345/Undergr0undAssassins/OT%20Stuff/birk.jpg


Looking good! :) That taken with my old XTI and the 17-85?

[DerekI]

after using a Nikon AF-S16-85VR for a couple of weeks , I decided to sell my EF-S17-85IS, which is actually not as bad as many L lovers say about it, it is the most unfairly trashed lens as with my Nikon AF-S18-200VR lens.


I have 3 Canon bodies(2 40D and 1 450D) and 2 Nikon bodies(D300 and D80) and I love both systems, but I can not deny the fact that Nikon makes sharper and better ranged compact zooms at cheaper prices.

the reason why I still use Canon body mainly is I like my 40D body(which can shoot 6.5f/s at 14bit raw mode no other crop camera can do this).

I do hate my 450D and 5D and am selling them for another 40D and Nikon D300 , I really wish Canon makes a great, really practical lens in real life like the AF-S16-85VR, which actually is sharper than the over priced EF-S17-55f2.8 IS and AF-S17-55f2.8DX.

I have 3 copies of EF-S17-55f2.8IS and all of them are not as sharp as my Nikon AF-S16-85VR , which is an insanely sharp lens at least my current copy, I dont need f2.8 since I use much faster primes such as Sigma 50f1.4 HSM(the sharpest lens ever made) , Nikon AF35f2D(very sharp) , Canon 85f1.8USM(very sharp), EF135f2LUSM(extremely sharp and solid)when really need to stop action(f2.8 is not at all fast enough), but I do need a good super sharp zoom covering usable range, for Canon 1.6X. I do want at least as wide and long as EF-S 15-75f3.5-f4.5ISUSM, 17mm is not really wide enough for a Canon crop like 40D , while 17mm on my Nikon is pretty wide.

Actually, I think the sharpest zooms ever made in any mount are the Tamorn SPAF17-50f2.8 and Olympus ZD12-60(really insanely sharp) much sharper than any of Canon , Nikon and Sony similar zooms I have ever used , compare these 2 lenses to the over priced Canon and Nikon 17-55f2.8s, it is sad to admit but in reality , the Oly kill them all easily,even the Tamorn is easily better optically than these Canon /NikonSony so called std zooms. I tested 4 copies of EF-S17-55f2.8IS , AF-S17-55f2.8DX and CZ 16-80........so it is not the copy I had , I have had 3 Tamron 17-50f2.8 and 28-75 f2.8 for both Cnaon and Nikon mount and I have both Canon and Nikon 17-55f2.8 , so it is not like that I can only afford the Tamron ,but I prefer it much better( much smaller , a bit sharper with better color than both Canon and Nikon lenses,much better dealing with back lit scenes and the Tamron can focus much closer than these over priced Canon and Nikon lenses).

So do not believe if you really want to get a prime quality zoom (optically not mechanically), you need an over priced and heavy L lens , not true at all , Ls are better corrected (less distorted) but not much sharper than others.

I have tested 8 Tamron lenses at many differnet stores in many different countries (Thailand , Taiwan , China , HK, France , US, Japan , Korea) and all of them are super sharp , at least as sharp as my Nikon Af-S17-55DX.

My EF-S17-55f2.8IS is sharper than the Nikon version but the Nikon Af-S16-85VR beats both and a good really good copy of the Tamron beats all of them hands down, but not as sharp as the Oly ZD12-60SWD.


Finally, the EF70-200f4LIS has gotten so many raving reviews and is a sharper lens than most of "Canon"made zooms but is just as sharp as Nikon AF-S70-300VR , which is a consumer Nikon zoom , priced much cheaper.

Actually for me , the AF-S70-300VR was the main reason I bought a D80 4 months a go.

Canon focuses on AF speed and correcting wide end distortion while Nikon focuses on pure resolution , so we can get the best of D300 or D700 resolution out with cheap Nikon zooms, but with Canon current zooms , most of Canon bodies more than 10mp out solve them clearly.

This is why many many Canon user only use primes and hate a zoom like EF-S17-85IS or 70-300IS and trash them down , in digital era , Canon or any make of lens should get lens resolution right first even at the expense of more pronounced distortion, all other things like distortion, CA , light fall off can be corrected with Photoshop or like it.

But you can never get lost resolution back in ..........so my mainly use Nikon zooms like AF-S70-300VR , AF-S16-85VR, Tamron 17-50f2.8, AF-S14-24f2.8 and Canon primes like EF-S60USM, EF135f2, 200f2.8L,85f1.8USM and Sigma 50f1.4.

Just compare the Canon EF70-300IS to Nikon AF-S70-300VR or Sony SL70-300G, you will know what I mean.


PS. many third party haters talking about how horrible Tamron QC on the 17-50f2.8 is but I personally do not believe that since I do make my own comparison and I never trust any lens review on line.

I had tried 9 copies of this lens as I said and all of them are at least as sharp as any of the EF-S17-55f2.8 ,I also tested many copies of the Canon lens.

Photozone and some other forums was the reason why I bought the over priced the Canon EF-S17-55IS when I had no problem working with my Tamron 17-50f2.8 and Canon EF-S17-85IS last year, well.
I thought there would be huge image quality improvement , I expected huge huge differnce in IQ between them but disappointingly I never saw it or even more honestly I have had to admit that I prefer the Tammy over the Canon OPTICALLY , the Canon at least beats the Nikon 17-55 DX and Sony CZ16-80 though...........

So my point is do not simply take any word from some L-lens lovers or some so-called lens review sites trashing any of so-called consumer zoom or whatever about some lens they dislike , despite of so many chart shooters complaining about the wideopen sharpenss of the EF-S17-85IS , it is actually a quite sharp lens with very good range and super fast AF, with some very careful PP , it can produce IQ similar to that of any of L or the EF-S17-55f2.8IS, but none of these Ls or EF-S17-55f2.8IS can replace the EF-S17-85IS and its versatile focal range.

Oly the Sigma 18-125OS HSM can replace it in Canon land.

Of course , the Oly ZD 12-60 is the best of you dont mind owning a couple of more mount systems.

I really want to get a EF-S17-85 mark2 , prefrably with constant f4 with IS.

Oly in-camera IS works better than other in-camera IS or SSS but Canon IS works even better.

[Max F]

Wow...I need to read that a few times. I think there some good info in there somewhere.

[Daniel2000]

after using a Nikon AF-S16-85VR for a couple of weeks , I decided to sell my EF-S17-85IS, which is actually not as bad as many L lovers say about it, it is the most unfairly trashed lens as with my Nikon AF-S18-200VR lens.


I have 3 Canon bodies(2 40D and 1 450D) and 2 Nikon bodies(D300 and D80) and I love both systems, but I can not deny the fact that Nikon makes sharper and better ranged compact zooms at cheaper prices.

the reason why I still use Canon body mainly is I like my 40D body(which can shoot 6.5f/s at 14bit raw mode no other crop camera can do this).

I do hate my 450D and 5D and am selling them for another 40D and Nikon D300 , I really wish Canon makes a great, really practical lens in real life like the AF-S16-85VR, which actually is sharper than the over priced EF-S17-55f2.8 IS and AF-S17-55f2.8DX.

I have 3 copies of EF-S17-55f2.8IS and all of them are not as sharp as my Nikon AF-S16-85VR , which is an insanely sharp lens at least my current copy, I dont need f2.8 since I use much faster primes such as Sigma 50f1.4 HSM(the sharpest lens ever made) , Nikon AF35f2D(very sharp) , Canon 85f1.8USM(very sharp), EF135f2LUSM(extremely sharp and solid)when really need to stop action(f2.8 is not at all fast enough), but I do need a good super sharp zoom covering usable range, for Canon 1.6X. I do want at least as wide and long as EF-S 15-75f3.5-f4.5ISUSM, 17mm is not really wide enough for a Canon crop like 40D , while 17mm on my Nikon is pretty wide.

Actually, I think the sharpest zooms ever made in any mount are the Tamorn SPAF17-50f2.8 and Olympus ZD12-60(really insanely sharp) much sharper than any of Canon , Nikon and Sony similar zooms I have ever used , compare these 2 lenses to the over priced Canon and Nikon 17-55f2.8s, it is sad to admit but in reality , the Oly kill them all easily,even the Tamorn is easily better optically than these Canon /NikonSony so called std zooms. I tested 4 copies of EF-S17-55f2.8IS , AF-S17-55f2.8DX and CZ 16-80........so it is not the copy I had , I have had 3 Tamron 17-50f2.8 and 28-75 f2.8 for both Cnaon and Nikon mount and I have both Canon and Nikon 17-55f2.8 , so it is not like that I can only afford the Tamron ,but I prefer it much better( much smaller , a bit sharper with better color than both Canon and Nikon lenses,much better dealing with back lit scenes and the Tamron can focus much closer than these over priced Canon and Nikon lenses).

So do not believe if you really want to get a prime quality zoom (optically not mechanically), you need an over priced and heavy L lens , not true at all , Ls are better corrected (less distorted) but not much sharper than others.

I have tested 8 Tamron lenses at many differnet stores in many different countries (Thailand , Taiwan , China , HK, France , US, Japan , Korea) and all of them are super sharp , at least as sharp as my Nikon Af-S17-55DX.

My EF-S17-55f2.8IS is sharper than the Nikon version but the Nikon Af-S16-85VR beats both and a good really good copy of the Tamron beats all of them hands down, but not as sharp as the Oly ZD12-60SWD.


Finally, the EF70-200f4LIS has gotten so many raving reviews and is a sharper lens than most of "Canon"made zooms but is just as sharp as Nikon AF-S70-300VR , which is a consumer Nikon zoom , priced much cheaper.

Actually for me , the AF-S70-300VR was the main reason I bought a D80 4 months a go.

Canon focuses on AF speed and correcting wide end distortion while Nikon focuses on pure resolution , so we can get the best of D300 or D700 resolution out with cheap Nikon zooms, but with Canon current zooms , most of Canon bodies more than 10mp out solve them clearly.

This is why many many Canon user only use primes and hate a zoom like EF-S17-85IS or 70-300IS and trash them down , in digital era , Canon or any make of lens should get lens resolution right first even at the expense of more pronounced distortion, all other things like distortion, CA , light fall off can be corrected with Photoshop or like it.

But you can never get lost resolution back in ..........so my mainly use Nikon zooms like AF-S70-300VR , AF-S16-85VR, Tamron 17-50f2.8, AF-S14-24f2.8 and Canon primes like EF-S60USM, EF135f2, 200f2.8L,85f1.8USM and Sigma 50f1.4.

Just compare the Canon EF70-300IS to Nikon AF-S70-300VR or Sony SL70-300G, you will know what I mean.


PS. many third party haters talking about how horrible Tamron QC on the 17-50f2.8 is but I personally do not believe that since I do make my own comparison and I never trust any lens review on line.

I had tried 9 copies of this lens as I said and all of them are at least as sharp as any of the EF-S17-55f2.8 ,I also tested many copies of the Canon lens.

Photozone and some other forums was the reason why I bought the over priced the Canon EF-S17-55IS when I had no problem working with my Tamron 17-50f2.8 and Canon EF-S17-85IS last year, well.
I thought there would be huge image quality improvement , I expected huge huge differnce in IQ between them but disappointingly I never saw it or even more honestly I have had to admit that I prefer the Tammy over the Canon OPTICALLY , the Canon at least beats the Nikon 17-55 DX and Sony CZ16-80 though...........

So my point is do not simply take any word from some L-lens lovers or some so-called lens review sites trashing any of so-called consumer zoom or whatever about some lens they dislike , despite of so many chart shooters complaining about the wideopen sharpenss of the EF-S17-85IS , it is actually a quite sharp lens with very good range and super fast AF, with some very careful PP , it can produce IQ similar to that of any of L or the EF-S17-55f2.8IS, but none of these Ls or EF-S17-55f2.8IS can replace the EF-S17-85IS and its versatile focal range.

Oly the Sigma 18-125OS HSM can replace it in Canon land.

Of course , the Oly ZD 12-60 is the best of you dont mind owning a couple of more mount systems.

I really want to get a EF-S17-85 mark2 , prefrably with constant f4 with IS.

Oly in-camera IS works better than other in-camera IS or SSS but Canon IS works even better.

I posted your post here http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=209580
I thought it would be interesting in the thread about the lens you were really liking

[fubarhouse]

Finally got some example shots, some were really supurb, c&c at your will.

I particuarly like #1.

http://www.fubarhouse.com.au/canon/17-85/012.jpg

http://www.fubarhouse.com.au/canon/17-85/009.jpg

http://www.fubarhouse.com.au/canon/17-85/010.jpg

http://www.fubarhouse.com.au/canon/17-85/013.jpg

[fritzk3]

So if a potential new XTi owner could only pick one lens from the following, which would likely consistently produce the best images with the XTi?

* 18-55 EF-S II
* 18-55 IS
* 17-85 IS USM

Likely subjects are people / portraits, nature, and landscapes.

[p360]

So if a potential new XTi owner could only pick one lens from the following, which would likely consistently produce the best images with the XTi?

* 18-55 EF-S II
* 18-55 IS
* 17-85 IS USM

Likely subjects are people / portraits, nature, and landscapes.


17-85 IS USM. See for yourself.

[noodle_snacks]

So if a potential new XTi owner could only pick one lens from the following, which would likely consistently produce the best images with the XTi?

* 18-55 EF-S II
* 18-55 IS
* 17-85 IS USM

Likely subjects are people / portraits, nature, and landscapes.

Having had both the 18-55 IS is just as good image quality wise, main disadvantage is no 55-85mm. The cost savings can go to another lens though.

[deepakev]

Hie,

This lens stays on my 400D all the time. It gives me very good results too.

[Scott111184]

I'll add a few...

http://scotthalfordphotography.smugmug.com/photos/382640570_ZrPBY-L.jpg

http://scotthalfordphotography.smugmug.com/photos/382623477_zYqRK-L.jpg

http://scotthalfordphotography.smugmug.com/photos/375413163_fkJL6-L.jpg

http://scotthalfordphotography.smugmug.com/photos/375403073_TPHgW-L.jpg

[single_track]

one more from Bangkok

[single_track]

street vender in Bangkok

[MLphoto]

This lens stays on my XTI all the time, i live it. But soon i think i will be selling it along with the XTI upgrading to 50D

[Mr Stevey]

night shot with the 17-85

[JDMist3hFastar]

My favorite photo to come from this lens so far...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3069/2920509773_c619f1c629_b.jpg

[jcchung]

Couple of my earlier test shots. For me The lens works very well in close ups and bright conditions (under the sun). The rest of the time I'll need to turn up the ISO from 400 to 800 for better results. It serves well as a carryalong lens but sometimes it really pushes my limit to get the images look punchy.

[assafphotography]

Well even though I don't have this lens anymore, its given me one of my best shots!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3080/2297398360_7b102be2d8_b.jpg

[Max F]

Is that and HDR using one shot?

[Scott111184]

Is that and HDR using one shot?

Looks like Topaz Labs (http://www.topazlabs.com/topazlabs/03products/topaz_adjust) software to me.

Would of been no way to get a decent HDR shot with a moving subject like that.

[assafphotography]

Is that and HDR using one shot?

Yeah, this is a single raw file turned into hdr using photomatix

[13inches]

I'm surprised there isn't more activity in this thread given the number of these lenses that are floating around. Anyhow, here's my favorite shot taken with this lens. This was from the 2008 Monza F1GP, taken during the pitlane walk on Thursday afternoon.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3062/3032405706_d8b9810ce2_b.jpg

[Jason C]

A snap I took last year, about a month after I got my 40D...still one of my faves.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2123/2173688776_0e7e001d3b_o.jpg

[anthonyi]

This was taken Apr-08 at Trelissick Gardens near Truro, Cornwall, UK using a 400D and the EF-S 17-85.

17mm, 1/400s, f4, ISO-100. Converted from RAW (using DxO Optics).

[anthonyi]

Another 400D shot with the 17-85.

30mm, 1/125s, f5, ISO-400.

[whaase]

I just picked up a used copy of this lens. I love it already. This picture isn't fancy, but it was straigt out of the camera, just re-sized. Taken in a badly lit livingroom.

http://www.whaase.com/gallery/main.php/d/2506-1/prin.jpg

[FociBC]

I dislike this lens, but it can produce at times.

1.
http://members.shaw.ca/focibc/images/Winter%20pics/IMG_2127%20%5B%5D.jpg

2. off my FB account so really bad compression. This was an off the hip shot as I was in the middle of a converstation.
http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v362/106/122/842845281/n842845281_4742741_401.jpg

http://members.shaw.ca/focibc/images/40D/2008-12-31/IMG_2272%20%5B%5D.jpg

[origamione]

6s
f/7.1
ISO400
56mm

[John E]

After spending time reading in this forum, I usually hate using this lens (because of all the bad press). However, after using it and looking at the pictures (even 100% crops) I'm constantly amazed at how sharp and colorful it actually is!

[Scott111184]

I'll share another taken with this lens...

http://scotthalfordphotography.smugmug.com/photos/410018286_dBn9K-L.jpg

[D-an-W]

Scott, more info on the settings used please?

[Scott111184]

Scott, more info on the settings used please?

AV | ISO 100 | 1/60sec | f/16 | 17mm

[D-an-W]

AV | ISO 100 | 1/60sec | f/16 | 17mm

Many thanks!

[Ryan7490]

I'm thinking of buying this lens...

[FociBC]

I'm thinking of buying this lens...

Shame your not closer as I am selling mine.

[origamione]

One of the shot i took quite sometimes back.http://www.wired.my/50D/IMG_1516.jpg

[FociBC]

looks under exposed?