17-85, can be great! :)

[Neilyb]

Okay, I admit it, I had moments of doubt when using my 17-85 IS USM, at the wider end edge sharpness is so bad I could throw the lens away and distortion is terrible as is CA. BUT, I used it the other day in the garden, taking the nephews playing. Mainly between 50-85mm with IS on....wow...check out the sharpness at 85mm...1/200, f6.3, ISO 400.

Heres the pic:
http://www.neilyb.de/pete.jpg

100% crop:
http://www.neilyb.de/pete_crop.jpg

It may not be L, but I was impressed with the detail on the shirt, I have done no post or sharpening on this image!

[calicokat]

Nice shot and congrats on getting a great lens :)

[NYC2BGI]

In good light especially outdoors it is a great lens. In bad/low light it can be a problem.

[rwong2k]

In good light especially outdoors it is a great lens. In bad/low light it can be a problem.

Similar situation, replaced it with a 24-105 and realizing 24 x1.6 isn't really wide enough for landscapes, so looking at the 16-35/2.8 now =(

[Neilyb]

Yes, my reason for the 17-85 was the range, 24-105 was considered but 24 isn't wide enough and swapping lenses often can be annoying!

[rwong2k]

Yes, my reason for the 17-85 was the range, 24-105 was considered but 24 isn't wide enough and swapping lenses often can be annoying!

yeah the 24-105 on a 5d would be perfect, but atlas I've sold my 24-105 in anticipation for the new 17-55/2.8, this lens should be a perfect walkaround lens or so I hope

[getg3]

Very nice shots.

Though it's not a L, I am happy with it too. Distortion can be easily fixed with PTlens. The IS works pretty good. I took this shot handheld @ 1/13 sec from a moving boat ride in Disney World:

http://www.pbase.com/getg3/image/58795246.jpg

[vjack]

Based on your description of image quality at the wide end, it sounds like this is a lens to avoid for those wanting that 17-40ish range.

[BearLeeAlive]

The range can't be beaten for a walk around lens on a 1.6X crop. The IQ, though not quite L quality if VERY GOOD. The IS is a bonus.

[Lightstream]

Based on your description of image quality at the wide end, it sounds like this is a lens to avoid for those wanting that 17-40ish range.
If you want a constant f/4 that is sharp wide open and are willing to sacrifice the extended focal length (very useful) and IS (even more useful), then the 17-40 is for you. Won't argue with the 17-40's proven image quality :) it is a good lens.

I needed IS and the length more than anything else. Changing lenses is a hassle. Still waiting for the 10-600mm zoom but they won't give it to me ;)

The 17-85 is a little bit weak at the 17-24mm range, after 24mm it's fantastic, on my copy at least. I have shot it against the 24-105 and 24-70 and I am impressed by how well the 17-85 holds its own - enough to prevent me from pulling out the wallet and saying "I'll take it" - even though I could. I am planning to get a lens around the 24-70's price range at the moment, so it's not cost holding me back.

However, one or two stops down (f/5.6-8) the 17-24 range cleans up nicely and becomes everything it can be, on par with the rest of the focal length.

Now that Canon has a 17-55 f/2.8 with IS, I am prepared to sacrifice the extra 35mm (I wonder how much I will miss it though) for f/2.8 constant aperture and IS, plus the ability to shoot it wide open and still get outstanding quality across all focal lengths (Photozone.de lens tests).