EF-S 17-85 - Love It or Hate It

THIS POLL IS INTENDED FOR THOSE WHO OWN OR HAVE EXTENSIVELY USED THE EF-S 17-85 LENS.

This is my go to lense for my 20D in most situations and is one my camera more than any of my other lenses. I find its features of focal length and IS awesome.

I believe that this lense is getting a bad rap and is perceived to be a poor choice by many, an attitude often brought about by those who haven't even used it.

It's a good lens for what it is but it doesn't suit my needs at all beyond landscape photography - I do too much low light stuff. I'm trying to sell mine to fund a f/2.8 zoom

For what I have used it for, though, it's great - I have had huge landscape prints done from it which have come up really well. 17mm is great and it has decent range though I don't often use it above 40mm or so.

++ as such I can't vote - there isn't an option for this kind of opinion

For the range, IS and sharpness over 50mm (bet my 70-200 f4 L!!) its a great lens.

Not an easy question...even before getting this lens I saw that it was getting pretty mixed reviews. Even so, when I had the chance to get one 2nd hand, with warranty and a good deal cheaper than in the shops, I bought it anyway.

This is one of those lenses with definite strengths and also pronounced flaws, so it does leave me feeling somewhat lukewarm at times, even though I'd admit that I like this lens a degree (pardon the pun) more than I dislike it.

Pronounced strengths:

-the focal length range...not only is it expansive enough to make it very walk-around on the APS-C bodies (for which is was made for), it manages this in a small package, and while keeping image quality at a sufficiently high level to remain acceptable. For this I believe there is no equal yet. The Sigma 17-70mm comes close, but I doubt if 70mm will be flattering enough for a portrait. But this is just being pedantic.

-IS...three stops worth of compensation for camera shake make this a great tool for shooting in most lighting conditions while traveling without a tripod. In the dark, bump up the ISO, watch the handholding technique and you will see decently-sharp pictures in your computer. Naturally IS also helps in bright conditions. For example, it's possible to shoot handheld even with a polarizer on the lens and still be able to stop down for greater DOF and better IQ. What about waterfalls? I've not tried this yet, but the lens can theoretically be handheld at slow enough shutter speeds to show off motion blur in water and other moving objects.

-USM...swift and very silent, and accurate. I've tried taking this to the streets with me and shoot from the hip. Managed some shots of even my friend who was standing next to me.

-light and compact...helps, when you don't want to be noticed. Plus it's great for traveling. I keep feeling that Canon made this lens for consumers and casual shooters rather than demanding photographers. The range, IS, weight and IQ all seem to point to this. All these things combine to create, as BearLeeAlive mentioned, a 'go-to' lens. I reckon this lens will work very nicely with a 100-400mmL. Take both on a holiday and you'll cover most eventualities, except perhaps sports and indoor action work...and macro.

-reasonable IQ...given the other features of the lens and the compromises to be made. The lens is much sharper at the longer end than the wide end, and I prefer it to be the other way around. That said, IQ at the wide end is passable and at the long end is really nice and sharp. No terrible drops in IQ anywhere in the range as far as I can see.

Pronounced flaws:

-terrible, terrible barrel distortion...it makes my cabinet and table look rounded at the center when I view my images, and it makes my LCD computer monitor look like a glass-fronted CRT from ages past. Yes, I've read that it's easy to fix, but I haven't tried. And it's intensely annoying to have such distortion in pictures to start off with. I will primarily work with the wide end of the lens when I want to do architecture, but as you can see, distortion of this sort is not going to be a plus point for photographing interiors.

-CA...quite pronounced on some occasions. When I photograph nature, there will definitely be some leaves/ branches against the sky, and CA reveals itself here. It makes the edges of the leaves all nice and purple and turns margins of branches brown-red. Again, I read this is easy to fix.

-build quality...not as good as I expected. A plastic shell is fine by me, but the zoom ring and focus ring could certainly be a little smoother and well-damped. Instead they feel pretty lifeless and sometimes scratchy in use. Well, at least the lens has a metal mount.

So in conclusion, any glaring flaws that this lens has are probably easily fixable, so they're annoyances at best. For people like myself it does have its limitations since I don't like to post-process every shot, and furthermore have specific interests (eg. architecture) that will reveal the distortion characteristics of this lens.

However, having such a focal length range in a single package is amazing indeed. It's good to know that I can grab this lens and be confident I can handle most things that a situation will throw at me. Although slow I've even shot basketball outdoors with this lens and it fared well. However because of the small aperture it's difficult to get a bokeh with this lens and some pictures can turn out with a cluttered background if you're not careful.

For those who like shooting from a plane or on a hot-air balloon, I reckon this is a good choice. It's not nice to change lenses in those situations, as far as I can guess, plus the IS will keep images nice and sharp despite the jar of the engine. To this end, this lens is probably as 'walkaround' as it gets. Sigma has released the 18-200mm OS, but we have yet to see how well this will fare.

Initially I wanted to keep this lens, but recently was lucky enough to get a 28-105mm almost for free. Hence I am thinking about selling this lens and getting a Sigma 15-30mm. If I do this, it will take me two lenses to cover a similar range, and without IS. However it will allow me to pocket back a few hundred dollars that I can use for something else.

All I can say is, with a lens like this, you're making compromises in exchange for flexibility. Whether those compromises will be a deal-breaker depends on the individual photographer. Personally, it made me like it enough to keep it, but there are other options I would like to explore.

Pros:
-IS
-USM
-Focal length

Cons:
-Variable aperture
-slow apertures
-EF-S mount

Some distortion on the wide end, but not too big a deal. It's not too heavy and its small. It's a decent lens to start out with for anyone new. It depends what you shoot. I don't think its a good photo journalism lens, but it does make a good walk around lens and family lens.

I would say for the 1.6 crop, there are other very viable alternatives out there.Options are always good for a consumer.

Sigma's 17-70 2.8-4.5 - Has variable aperture, but is faster on both ends. And physically could work on 1.3 crop, or other sensors. Or the older 1.6 crops.

Tamron's 17-50 2.8 - constant aperture. Not as long, but fits about the standard normal zoom in the FOV of a film camera.

fWord, great assessment.

I agree with all you say though I have never had trouble with CA with my lens though have heard about it from others.

You are right that it's weakess point is the barrel distortion and it is most definitely not a go to lens for architecture. Even at 85mm it is still evident somewhat. I use my mainly for candid shots and landscape so do not find this much of an issue.

I even find that the wide end is guite sharp if you stop down to f8.

I've used my Brother-in-laws 17-85 and noticed the distortion, but this does not realy notice in landscape shots but does indoors or if taking shots with any straight lines in them (buildings). There was a small amount of CA in just a few shots I took whilst out one day.
This was before i got my 24-105L and nearly got one.
I think the 24-105 is much better but also more expensive. but is usable on any FF I may get in the future.

Suspect there is a little bit of copy-to-copy variation.

I own a magnificent 24-105 that consistently amazes me with its performance, and naturally, I compare it to the 17-85.

USM - on par. 24-105 may be a hair faster. Hard to call on this one.

IS - impossible to call. Both lenses can be handheld down to amazingly low shutter speeds. Indispensable.

Build quality - 24-105 has the edge, and is expected to as an L.

Optical performance - From 17-24mm wide open the EF-S lens is weak, this is a known issue. At wide open 24mm onwards, my copies are very hard to call. The 24-105 is sharper and a little bit more colorful, but I suspect I would not be able to CONSISTENTLY identify them in a blind test. (I can do it sometimes, but not all the time)

If you need maximum performance at the 17-24mm range, try the 17-40 f/4L instead. I use this as my ultrawide on full frame (no crop) and wide on my 1.3X 1D, quality is superb. Definitely has an edge on the 17-85 ESPECIALLY wide open.

17-85 must be stopped down to at least f/5.6 across the entire range. As you cross 24mm, the lens stops itself down as the aperture changes. 24-105 (my copy) can be shot at any FL with the confidence that it will deliver. Even the 105mm end where it is purported to be weak. Got some nice portraits at that FL in available light f/4, ISO 800. Honestly surprised at how good it was.

When stopped down, performance is very decent. But really consider it a 17-85 f/5.6. By f/8 it is very good, though you will not always be able to shoot at this aperture.

f/5.6 aperture can be a pain to shoot at. f/4 is a lot nicer, f/2.8 - well, then consider the 17-55/2.8 IS USM.

CA - my kit lens had a bit of it. 17-85 - minimal. 24-105 - nothing that I can tell. 50 f/1.8 wide open - now *THAT* is CA!! MY EYES!!

Nice as the 24-105 is, I do not recommend it for APS-C as it is an effective 39mm lens on the wide end and it positively drives me nuts. On 1.3X CF it is close enough to 28mm (31mm really) that it is useable. Full frame is where it shows its magic.

BearLeeAlive wrote in post #2118590
I agree with all you say though I have never had trouble with CA with my lens though have heard about it from others.

Perhaps you got a great copy! But then again perhaps my garden is a CA torture chamber...I've even demonstrated quite profound CA in a naked 135mm f/2L, which many people say hardly ever produces disturbing CA in their shots.

Another great evaluation Lightstream.

Very fairly written and right along the lines of my thoughts. When I add a 5D (or is succesor) to my kit, and I will, I will be all over the 24-105 as my walk around lens as this is where the 17-85 shines on my 20D.

BTW, the only comparison you missed is that the 17-85 is half the price of the 24-105.

I do not think the 17-85 is a perfect lens at all, I just think that given the parameters it was designed with, it works great. It would be impossible to make a perfect zoom lens in this range and suit everyone.

fWord wrote in post #2119127
Perhaps you got a great copy! But then again perhaps my garden is a CA torture chamber...I've even demonstrated quite profound CA in a naked 135mm f/2L, which many people say hardly ever produces disturbing CA in their shots.

I do think I must have an exceptionally good copy.

Maybe you bring out the CA in a lens?
Kinda like how I can bring out the demon in my wife.

BearLeeAlive wrote in post #2119148
I do think I must have an exceptionally good copy.

Maybe you bring out the CA in a lens?
Kinda like how I can bring out the demon in my wife.

Maybe so. If that's the case then I bring out the devil in my lenses. They're my inanimate wives. I'll search up those crops of CA and put them up here in around 5 minutes.

Good owner poll Jim boy. We need more owner polls. I do wonder tho' if owners of this class of lens really have any basis for comparison. I might be happy with something but only because I don't have experience of better.Maybe that is all that counts tho'?

When I looked at this lens many moons back I decided it was overpriced compared to the 'competing' Sigma 24-70mm and Tamron 28-75mm 2.8's. I would take speed over IS usually, esp. when there is no build advantage (tho' USM counts!) These days lenses like the Tamron 17-50mm are also cheaper and seem to be better optically and have a 2.8 aperture. I therefore don't really see the attraction in the consumer IS's against the cheaper, faster, better IQ lenses.

Thanks Jim Yeah, that is true, the cost difference is huge. Your 5D will show you a whole new world.. I migrated from a 350D and 17-85 to a 5D and 24-105. I can never go back. The 24-105 was the direct replacement since the 17-85 will not work on the 5D. Actually, it can be MADE to fit, and I have done this, although it is very counterproductive

fWord: Cool.. now getting CA out of the 135L is an achievement

BTW, I had no idea that Sigma had released a 18-200 OS. Very interesting. At this time it is the ONLY 18-200 stabilized offering for Canon (the Nikon folks have had theirs for a while).

As promised...100% crops all nice and purple-y from CA:

17-85mm IS: