Once I'm going 17mm.....

thanks guys, you have all made excellent points, not all forums have such helpful members such as this one. I have some questions, how fast is fast. In other words, my 28-105 - is this considered fast AF ?

liza - you wrote save my money and buy the 17-55, but insn`t this the most expensive of the bunch ?

jr senator, - I do want a little zoom play, I like the that flexibility, so a 17 only is not really what I am thinking about, but when it comes to a 50 or an 85, then I will go for it, but alas, that is for another thread.

pete- eos, I do not think I will wish for the 10 after. I have been shooting 35mm before this, and have always found 28ish to be sufficiently wide enough for most of my needs.

One last thing, the ``L`` and the ``IS`` refer to what. I know I can look this up somewhere, but while we are on the subject...
I do know what USM is, as I have it in the 28-105.

thanks guys, one thing for sure, I have to look into the tamron which I didn`t even know about

DerekI wrote in post #3088775
Before trashing the 17-85Is , have you ever used it or just your opinion is based on a web site review like photozone ?


Why is it not worth the money?

I love it with knowing all its problems and that are all easily corrected in
PP.

Remember it is digital age not old 35mm film era , so the distortion is not a problem .

I am curious why so many people rave for more useless lens like 17-55IS(more vignetting , more prone to flare and less reproduction rate ) , which is not worth the money IMHO , but many without knowing the lens hate the 17-85IS .......

Seem like people are hugely biased and the Tmaron is a good lens but force me to change the lens more often, and not focuses as fast as the 17-85IS.

The 17-85Is is a jack of all trade maybe though does all acceptably well esp in digital era.

Please do not brainwash others to beleive this lens is a trashy lens or over priced .......... I understand you hate it but others can have their own eyes to judge it themselves.

Finally a lens should not be judged purely based on its optics.

Mechanics , optics, ergonomics ,convenience all are important.

I think every body should beleive his or her own eyes rather than listening to others or reading worthless lens review of photozone.de and biased camera review of dp review ..............every body has different experience and different shooting style , after all.

Aren't you doing the same by bagging out the 17-55 ? I agree with your sentiment that re-quoting reviews isn't the same as owning and using a lens. Reviews are a one-off test and often vary wildly in their assessment between reviewers.

I don't know the 17-85IS but I do know the 17-55 is an outstanding lens in all the categories you mention above and definitely worth the money. I recommend a test drive.

AMG wrote in post #3088893
thanks guys, you have all made excellent points, not all forums have such helpful members such as this one. I have some questions, how fast is fast. In other words, my 28-105 - is this considered fast AF ?

liza - you wrote save my money and buy the 17-55, but insn`t this the most expensive of the bunch ?

jr senator, - I do want a little zoom play, I like the that flexibility, so a 17 only is not really what I am thinking about, but when it comes to a 50 or an 85, then I will go for it, but alas, that is for another thread.

pete- eos, I do not think I will wish for the 10 after. I have been shooting 35mm before this, and have always found 28ish to be sufficiently wide enough for most of my needs.

One last thing, the ``L`` and the ``IS`` refer to what. I know I can look this up somewhere, but while we are on the subject...
I do know what USM is, as I have it in the 28-105.

thanks guys, one thing for sure, I have to look into the tamron which I didn`t even know about

'L' means it's a pro quality non EF-S lens. The 17-55 IS is optically as good as L zooms in the same focal lengths but EF-S is not meant for pro (FF) cameras. It's a marketing decision.

IS means Image Stabilisation. The 17-55 IS allows 3 stops slower shutter speed and is considered (by another reviewer) as the most 'hand-holdable' of all Canon lenses. Of course IS cannot help a moving subject.

I would say L is as much about optical / image quality as it is about build quality. I just made this same decision.

angryhampster wrote in post #3086952
17-40 is a very limited range on a 1.6 crop. I would rule out the L. The Sigma 17-70's optics are far better than the 17-85, for about $100 less. The Canon 17-55 is optically equal to the 17-70, but has less range. However, it is constant f/2.8 aperture and has IS. It is more than twice as much as the Sigma, somewhere between 900-1000 dollars. Tamron also makes a spectacular 17-50mm f/2.8 for not much more than the Sig 17-70.

Just , a simple Question for you :

You said in above the Canon 1755IS is optically equal to the 17-70 , but has less range .

Do you really beleive that?

I know the 17-55Is has severe flare, ghosting and vignetting issues but at least I believe has a nice sharp lens as a whole.

So please elaborate it futher.

If the Sigma is as good as you say here , I 'd get one since I played with it this moring at s shop and plan to rent it tomorrow .

Thanks in advance.

bungee wrote in post #3088901
Aren't you doing the same by bagging out the 17-55 ? I agree with your sentiment that re-quoting reviews isn't the same as owning and using a lens. Reviews are a one-off test and often vary wildly in their assessment between reviewers.

I don't know the 17-85IS but I do know the 17-55 is an outstanding lens in all the categories you mention above and definitely worth the money. I recommend a test drive.

What about the world famous vignnetting and flare issue of the greatest EF-S lens ever made ?

And any one really happy to pay a grand for an EF-S only lens?

I think the 17-40L is a much more reasonable choice since he(OP) has the great 24-105L already.

To me it is the Tamron 17-50/2.8 or given the money, the efs 17-55/2.8 IS.

DerekI wrote in post #3089039
Just , a simple Question for you :

You said in above the Canon 1755IS is optically equal to the 17-70 , but has less range .

Do you really beleive that?

I know the 17-55Is has severe flare, ghosting and vignetting issues but at least I believe has a nice sharp lens as a whole.

So please elaborate it futher.

If the Sigma is as good as you say here , I 'd get one since I played with it this moring at s shop and plan to rent it tomorrow .

Thanks in advance.

Well I got vignetting from the 17-55 IS on the first pic yesterday after thousands with this lens. That was a hand-held shot f/2.8 at 1/5 sec and 28mm in first hint of morning light. Could any other lens return a sharp hand-held under these conditions ? Not likely without f/2.8 and 3 stops IS.

The ghosting and flare issues mentioned ? Hmm, do you own this lens. I haven't had issues.

As for it's optical superiority, now that is real.

Read http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

This reviewer rates the EF-S 17-55 IS as optically superior to all of his L zooms in the same focal length (and he actually owns them). They were ...

EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM
EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM

DerekI wrote in post #3089055
What about the world famous vignnetting and flare issue of the greatest EF-S lens ever made ?

And any one really happy to pay a grand for an EF-S only lens?

I think the 17-40L is a much more reasonable choice since he(OP) has the great 24-105L already.

Do you own the 17-55 IS or are you doing what you complained about and quoting without hands-on experience ?

Ask a genuine 17-55 IS owner if they are happy with the grand they paid. It really is worth the money if that's the lens you need.

17-40 f/4L and be done with it. If it is already awesome in FF cameras imagine with the crop factor taking advantage of the lens' sweet spot!

since you already have 28-xx lens, why not add in a 10-22? it'll cover the rest without dealing with an extra paperweight on your desk

ebann wrote in post #3091380
17-40 f/4L and be done with it. If it is already awesome in FF cameras imagine with the crop factor taking advantage of the lens' sweet spot!

Frankly, the 1740 can't compete with the 1755IS on a 1.6x. Better focal range, IS, and f2.8. Totally different beast.

On the subject of vignetting see http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/lightfall (thanks to LightRules for the link)

Summary :

Vignetting only visible on the 17-55 IS at f/2.8 (widest). None from f/4
Vignetting on the 17-85 IS apparent at f/4 (widest)
None apparent on the 17-40 at f/4 (widest)

So at f/4 only the 17-85 suffers vignetting. The 17-55 & 17-40 are both fine at f/4. The 17-55 can still go down to f/2.8 and has a hand 3 stop IS in reserve.

If you have the money buy the 17-55 IS !

DerekI wrote in post #3088775
Before trashing the 17-85Is , have you ever used it or just your opinion is based on a web site review like photozone ?


Why is it not worth the money?

I love it with knowing all its problems and that are all easily corrected in
PP.

Remember it is digital age not old 35mm film era , so the distortion is not a problem .

I am curious why so many people rave for more useless lens like 17-55IS(more vignetting , more prone to flare and less reproduction rate ) , which is not worth the money IMHO , but many without knowing the lens hate the 17-85IS .......

Seem like people are hugely biased and the Tmaron is a good lens but force me to change the lens more often, and not focuses as fast as the 17-85IS.

The 17-85Is is a jack of all trade maybe though does all acceptably well esp in digital era.

Please do not brainwash others to beleive this lens is a trashy lens or over priced .......... I understand you hate it but others can have their own eyes to judge it themselves.

Finally a lens should not be judged purely based on its optics.

Mechanics , optics, ergonomics ,convenience all are important.

I think every body should beleive his or her own eyes rather than listening to others or reading worthless lens review of photozone.de and biased camera review of dp review ..............every body has different experience and different shooting style , after all.

Yes, I have tried the 17-85. It isn't a bad lens, but for $150 less you can get a better (sharper with less CA), faster lens. If you love the FL the 17-85 gives, that's great. And, you should voice your opinion about how much you like yours, because that helps the OP get information. I would rather have a wide aperture lens that I can trust wide open - which is how I feel about my copy of the tammy. Take a look at the sell board here and elsewhere for 17-85's, and you will see that I am not alone in my assessment (and note the resell prices). Anyway, for my style of shooting and budget the tammy is the best choice for me. I do look forward to getting an 85/1.8 back, and this time it will be for keeps. Someday I may even get the 17-55, but I'm going to wait and see what happens with a 40D first.

I have the 17-85 F4-5.6 IS usm not sure if that's the same 17-85 you are all speaking of? I am assuming so as it's EF-S. Other than being a slow lens i've had great pictures and not a problem with the lens imo. However that doesn't mean I know what I'm talking about just saying on a consumer standpoint XTi 17-85 seems to work well for me (short of I wish it was an 85/1.2 or 135.2 I am supremely suprised to hear people say taht the 17-55 has better IQ than the similar focal length L Lenses at wide open. That's impressive.


Oh sorry 1 more thing..Do you ever intend on going Full frame?

timbop wrote in post #3091649
Yes, I have tried the 17-85. It isn't a bad lens, but for $150 less you can get a better (sharper with less CA), faster lens. If you love the FL the 17-85 gives, that's great. And, you should voice your opinion about how much you like yours, because that helps the OP get information. I would rather have a wide aperture lens that I can trust wide open - which is how I feel about my copy of the tammy. Take a look at the sell board here and elsewhere for 17-85's, and you will see that I am not alone in my assessment (and note the resell prices). Anyway, for my style of shooting and budget the tammy is the best choice for me. I do look forward to getting an 85/1.8 back, and this time it will be for keeps. Someday I may even get the 17-55, but I'm going to wait and see what happens with a 40D first.

Well cause I do not like the Tamron , I can not talk about how much I like it .
I liked it but it is tough for me to get used to using the lens.
Maybe it is sharp focuses ok though , the zoom ring goes the opposite direction to all other lenses(Canons and Sigmas) that I currently own and so I need to ditch it , as I commented previously in other threads , now I am just waiting to rent a Sigma 18-50EX Macro for a day .

If you look at the lens elements , this lens is so interesting ,an SLD glass is expensive and did you read the POP photo may issue raving about this lens ?

One really good thing about the Tamron was the lens cap , was a nice cap , very easy to use . So I am thinking about repalcing all my Canon lens caps with Tamron lens caps.

2 weeks a go , as I took 2 exactly the same pictures of penciles and robots in my room , I do not think the Tamron was much sharper than the Canon EF-s17-85IS . But with the IS , I could hand hold it at shutter speed of 0.3 sec at 85mm while I could only go down to 1/20th with a non IS lens like the Tamron at 50mm . This actually made more significant difference in picture quality than the slightly sharper optics of the Tamron.

I dont take photos of a moving dog in door or like that. I mostly shoot static subjects like artistic paints of my students.

So I value the IS more than the F2.8 of the Tamron , and I like the Canon eF-S17-85IS more than the 17-55IS because it is smaller and less vignetting and the 17-55IS ergonomics are not my kind(I know it is sharp and has good contrasty color).

If I were to spend that much money on a lens , I d get a 24-105L with better design and build quality.

It's just my opinion nobody has to agree with me on this but I can not like the EF-S costs more than USd1000, actually that lens costs more than USD1200 in Singapore and USd1300 in BKK while it costs only USD800 in Japan.

And I know there are many many 17-85IS bashers trashing it down in all forums on line but I also know people like Bob Atokins , Godon Leang raving about it and they have something (pictures)to back it up .

It is just simple , some like this some hate this and nothing wrong with that.

As for the OP , he has to believe in his own eyes.

Personally I am waiting for an EF-S17-85IS F4 mark2 or Sigma 17-70 DC macro F2.8-4.5 OS HSM.