EF-S 17 - 85 mm F4 - F5.6 IS USM

I'm looking to replace my 18-55 kit lens for my 20D.

I'd like to hear some opinions on this lens and how it compares to other similar lenses. I searched the forum and I couldn't find many opinions. I like the range and I'd really like to have IS...but I'm not sure that it's worth the money.

I'm leaning toward the 17-40 F4 L...but it is bit slow and it doesn't have IS. Although full frame compatibility is a factor as I plan to go full frame in a year or two.

I'd like the 17-55 F2.8 L IS...but it's twice the price of the 17-85...and almost twice as much as the 17-40...And it's EF-S.

What about the wide F2.8 zooms from Sigma & Tamron? Are they viable options in terms of image quality?

I will be using the lens in a variety of situations including weddings and landscapes.

the tamron 17-50 is a great replacement for the kit lens, and image quality is very high. some people believe these tammy's can match the quality of an L lens. build quality is rather cheap and autofocus isnt as smooth and fast, but you'll get great images. the same goes for sigma 18-50. the tammy seems to have an overall better level of image quality, but the build of the sigma is much more solid.

if the 17-40 is slow, you will most likely think the 17-85 IS is slow as well. the IS will help with still shots, but for actions shots, you might as well use the kit lens. image quality on the 17-85 is higher than the kit lens, and it's worth the upgrade IMO.

in terms of image quality in the 'walkaround' focal lengths (17~85), i'd rank it from 17-55IS, the sigma/tamron and then the 17-85. in terms of build/af/etc, 17-55/17-85 tops the sigma/tamron. in terms of price, sigma/tamron rocks!

another alternative could be the sigma 17-70. no IS, but great image quality and decent build, and $100+ cheaper than the 17-85IS AND you get macro.

if the 17-40 is too slow for you id look at the tamron 17-50 2.8. the 17-85 is a nice lens and all... but it wont be any faster than the 17-40, even though the 17-85 has IS, 2.8 will be a better help.

Mike, I had the efs 17-85 iS for a year and it's a dog! Stay away if you can. It's sharp at the long end and the iS works well on it, also built well and doesn't break the bank. However it has the worst barrel distortion of any zooms I ever owned or tried before, not to mention it's horrid C.A and P.F on top, plus it's aperture is slow.
I am with the others on the Tamron 17-50 2.8 or perhaps a Sigma AF 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro which is awesome and costs less than the above mentoned lenses. I posted a list of 7 reasons why the Sigma 17-70 is better than the Canon 17-85 in another thread, I think on tuesday. See if I can find it for ya, You can also look at the new Sigma AF 18-50 f/2.8 EX DC Macro. These lenses would be more of an upgrade for you, instead of just replacing the kit-lens... You probably don't want to lose the wideness and since you have a 20D you'll need an ultra wide lens or a super wide like these, as long as they're designed for APS-C size sensors. The 17-40 is super sharp, but on the 20D it may not be wide enough...

Thanks for the info. I do like the price, speed and range of the Tamron 18-50 F2.8. Do you know how it performs wide open?

I'm not entirely sure that F4 is too slow for me...I'm thinking that if I use flash effectively...F4 will be fine for most all situations. Of course, I'd rather have F2.8...but if the image quality of the 17-40 L really is that much better...I might prefer it to the Tamron (or anything else). The build quality is better...that's obvious. It will work on full frame (I still have my EOS 650). Another advantage is that, since it's full frame, I'd only be using the centre of the image circle...and I'd really love to have a red circle on my lens :P

So I guess my new questions is...how does the 17-40F4 L compare to the Tamron 17-50 F2.8? (or the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 )

well it definitly performs better, its just a matter of whether or not you need the 2.8.

The Tamron 17-50 has very excellent MTF scores, not too dissimilar to the Canon 17-55. It has a bit more CA than the Canon, but still pretty good. Its major shortcoming is curvature of field. On the other hand, it is just as fast and much lighter and less expensive!

Hi there,

Wish I could help you out. I just got the 17-85 in the mail today and I'm still playing with it.

I'll probably go out this weekend and get some shots.

Thanks, I appreciate the input.

The 17-85 is a great lens, and I was happy with it for a good few months before I got the admittedly better 24-105L.

Yes, it's got some distortion at the wide end, but then what are you going to be using that wide end for? If it's landscapes, then it'll be fine. If it's architechure, then a wide angle is the wrong way of doing it.

For a general walk around, ive found it to be great. It's got a good focal range, gives nice bokeh, it had IS and the pictures are nice and sharp (given effective focussing).

Just take a look at the image archive for the lens and you'll see it gives great results. Plenty of people are happy with it.

1785 is good and sharp most of the time. I find it shaper and have slightly better contrast than the kit lens.

17-85 was a fine lens, at the wide end was a bit soft in the corners but generally very sharp. As I look at it do you need the extra stop in speed or do you need the extra DOF (which IS will allow you to use)?

Mike, as I promised, here is my comparo on the Canon EFS 17-85 iS & Sigma AF 17-70 DC Macro.
This gives you a quick highlight why the Sigma is a better value:

~ Build quality is same or better
~ Cost significantly less
~ Much better optical quality, especially wide
~ Excellent closeups with better IQ
~ Very similar focal length
~ Much longer warranty (5-years)
~ Comes with lens hood
~ More portable and has zoom lock
~ Aperture advantage, (f/2.8 @ 17-mm)
~ Designed for APS-C cameras, so it is real wide
~ Newer development & design

I own(ed) both lenses!

to be fair...the 17-85 has IS/USM, which may get you better pictures in low light for stills, smooth/faster/silent AF and a little bit more reach on the long end. it's sharp enough for most people (until they eventually grow out of it, but by then, even the sigma 17-70 may be an afterthought. you'd likely get something faster in a more localized focal range)

i've handled both at the store and i like the experience of the 17-85. ultimately, sigma will give you overall higher quality pictures, but the 17-85 is also sharp and has a low-light advantage on still shots.

The 17-85 gets unfairly bashed. If you look at photozone.de MTF numbers, in the center it gives the legendary 24-70L a run for its money! At the edges, it is a bit inferior to the 24-70L. I have compared the 17-85 directly, pixel peeping against both the Tamron 28-75 and the Canon 70-200 f/4L and could not see a difference at 70mm! Yes, barrel distortion is fairly high, at 17mm, but it is resolved fairly quickly. I have read posts by some other L users who admitted the 17-85 was the equal of their 24-70L. I sold mine merely because the max aperture did not meet my style of photography, but I still miss the 17mm-28mm focal range and am trying to fund an f/2.8 to cover that.