17-85 IS USM - any better choice?

Ok, honestly, I'm not impressed with this lens... its not sharp at all! I want to replace that range with something better, more sharp... I don't need IS I've steady hands. How much can I get for it? its in mint condition with abit of dust inside...

I had the 17-85 and replaced it with the 24-105L, a great lens. I also recently purchased the Tamron 17-50 2,8 and really like it as well. As far as trade in I got $350 from a local dealer. Hope this helps.

well yes 24-105L is a good thing but its over my budget... I believe I can sell mine for 400$ at ebay... so that's my current budget

I heard tamrons, don't remember exact version... one with similar range to 17-85IS is tad sharper...m

I gather the 24-105L is the one to go for, it seems to get great praise all round. I have the EFS17-85 IS USM and my main reservation about it is the amount of CA which is noticeable on some subjects. However I have not found it wanting in sharpness (to my eye anyway)
Attached taken recently

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I have the 17-85 and find it not exactly stellar in the sharpness department. CA can be horrendous too.

I've heard good things about the 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM

http://www.fredmiranda​.com …=206&sort=7&cat​=27&page=3


http://bobatkins.com …10d300dlenses.h​tml#28-105

Is the business end of this central flower not sharp?

Pete-30D
well u cannot tell sharpness without 100% crops give me a crop of that photo, from the center
thx

I tested mine at 70-85mm at f 5.6, against the 70-200f4 at 5.6 and there was no difference. Images have gone now though. The only complaints I had with this lens were CA, at the wide end and edge softness (on a crop cam this is a bad thing!) in the corners...but overall it took some fabulous pictures and for range and IS there is nothing else like it (except the 24-105 on a FF cam which is just incredible).

sandro9mm wrote:
Pete-30D
well u cannot tell sharpness without 100% crops give me a crop of that photo, from the center
thx

I don't have access to my RAW files right now, so I'll PM you the crop when I get back home again.

But, my opinion, I'm happy with the sharpness of my lens at the photo size at which I'm viewing it. In my experience, it's a difficult exercise to pixel peep and at the same time keep a handle on the larger picture.

This is a lens which certainly does have some flaws as others have mentioned, CA and distortion at the wide end being the most noteable. Sharpness is not one of it's weak areas though.

Centre sharpness on a good copy of this lens should be very acceptable. I know you got yours second hand - is it possible the vendor passed it onto you because it didn't perform well for him? If it's only the sharpness of the lens which is dissappointing you then perhaps look at getting it calibrated by Canon. If you just don't like the lens overall then there are no direct replacements but you could look at the following: 17-40 similar pricing but no IS and smaller focal range, 17-55 IS has fixed 2.8 max aperture throughout the range but more expensive, Sigma 17-70 seems to get good reviews. HTH!

true, its a second hand purchase, I got it for 350$, but I don't think he was getting rid of it for its quality... I know that guy and he's upgrading to L, that's why he sold off all his non L's for quite nice price.

I've allot of dust inside though... allot! But as the reviews suggest its pretty known problem with this lens.

and I'm not much into landscape photography, and 17-40 wouldn't be a good choice, I THINK I do street photography, and maybe longer lens would do it?

I'm also looking at this post: https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=1967228#p​ost1967228
that could get me a decent range and I would end up with more money in my pocket... I'm not sure how this 55-200 compares to the 17-85 on its range of course, 55-85 but I guess it shouldn't be bad...

I'm still thinking and open to suggestions... I may as well stick with my 17-85 since I'm not that crazy about sharpness unless I get right shot /contrast and colors

I really like my 17-85. Use it way more than my L lenses. When wide you really need to stop it down some if possible.

85mm, f 8.0, 1/125, ISO 200

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Sigma 17-70, it's faster, sharper, less CA, less distortion, and less dough too.

was just gonna say the Sigma 17-70, lots of good reviews on it. I think there's even a post with a bunch of pics in here.