1st impressions of Canon EFS 17-85mm IS

I recently bought a 2nd hand 18-55mm kit lens to see if I was interested in wide angle lens. I figured this was a cheap way to test my interest. Well I liked the wide pics so after a couple of weeks with the kit lens I ordered the Canon EFS 17-85mm IS. I really wanted that range (17-85mm) but it appears that the kit lens, the 18-55mm is sharper and has better contrast and color rendition in its range. I plan to test more over the next few days but here are 3 comparison shots between the 18-55 and the 17-85. Shot on a tripod, wide open, ISO 100. One inside with flash 2 sets outside. I tried and tried to make the 17-85 shoot at 18-55 but it would only get close. I am not satisfied with the lens but will do further testing before returning. This lens seems to get shining reviews or awful reviews and few in between.. Could there be that many bad copies?? I sure don't know. It is alittle soft in the corners and has a little barrel distortion but not so bad that I couldn't live with it. But the sharpness and contrast needs to be better. Am I being too picky??
17-85 @ 17

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

It's really tough to tell them apart at that resolution. As a matter of fact, the only big difference I can see is the 17-85mm on the railing in the last pic.

Can you post some 100%, 1 for 1 pixel crops from the center and edges of those images?

I guess part of the extra cost of the 17-85mm is the IS which will come in handy, and I assume the build quality is better, and will outlast the 18-55mm which I've heard others say is good for about a year with a lot of use. But at $600 I'd expect it to clearly outperform the 18-55mm, which doesn't seem to be the case from your samples so far.

Maybe the best thing to do would be to load up a couple of extra hot rounds on that XL650, take it out back and put it down.

Phil, you are correct in that there is little difference between the 2 but as you said for $500 more IU exspected a lot more. I didn't post it but Idid a 100mm macro lens comparison, which isn't fair, but there was a great big improvement in the overall quality of the pic. The 100mm was $100 less Maybe I exspected too much but I did try to take a flower pic. Took 35 and didn't get one keeper. I did Bob Atkins focus test and it came out different each time. Got tired and will retry tomorrow. Again maybe my exspectations were too high.

JZ

Oh, I totally agree with you. The kit lens is like a $100 lens. I would expect a lot more for my extra $500 than IS and an extra 30mm. I expected a lot more from both the new EF-S lenses, the 17-85mm IS and the 10-22mm, but from what I've seen so far, both are just 'ok' and not worth the high price they are getting for them.

Check out the Tamron 28-75mm. A friend of mine has one and it's awesome, and just about everyone that gets it raves about it, and it's just a little over $300, and an f/2.8 which is a lot faster than the 17-85mm EF-S. Hell, you could even get the Tokina 17mm in addition to the Tamron 28-75mm for about the same price as the Canon 17-85mm, and that pair of lenses for sure would blow away the Canon 17-85mm (Hmmm, that's the second time I came up with that combo tonight, maybe I'm on to something).

Anyway, I still would like to see you crop out a small areas from the center of those images without scaling them so we can see better if the 17-85mm is any sharper in the center and on the edges.

Definitely not being too picky - basically identical results and two very different prices. Have you considered the 17-40/4L for less than $100 more? Less range but you're getting a whole lot more lens for the money.

Very nice Dillon reloader, by the way ...

It is difficult to judge from such a low resolution sample, but if you look closely at the XL650 label on the reloader or the pattern of knots on the centre post of the porch on the other pictures, the 17-85 appears to be slightly sharper. There isn't going to be much difference in the out of focus portions of the photos. You are only going to see improved sharpness on items that are close to the plane of focus.

Looking at a small picture like this on a computer screen cannot be expected to show much difference. Print a 12 x 18 or 16 x 20 enlargement and you would expect the advantage of a better lens to be noticeable.

If you just wanted to make pictures to post on the internet, the 18-55 would have all the resolution you need.

Even modern kit lenses are quite good compared to what they used to be. You can expect to pay a lot more for small increases in quality.

lens hood for 17-85

Hi, I'm thinking of getting the 17-85 for the I.S. option. I can't hold the camera as steady as I used to. Did your lens come with a lens hood? If not do you know where I can get one?
Emil

I've also been seeking a wide-to-medium tele, to pair with my 100-400 L IS, as a two lens system.

The 17-40 L, has favorable image quality, but it's short range would require lugging around an additional lens, and constant lens changing.

From the comparisons that I've seen, on the web, the 17-85 S IS appears to be dissapointing--- especially in veiw of it's price.

I'm leaning toward the Sigma 18-125, which at $270 including a hood appears to be a "diamond in the rough". While it lacks IS, and USM-AF, it appears to render generally excellent image quality, and just might be the one to pick until something better comes along???

http://www.pbase.com …ma/18-125_35-56_dc_if_asp

Leigh

Jerry, as the others have said, they're pretty close and it's really hard to tell without a 100% crop. However, I will say this. Although the 17-85 seems to have less contrast, if you check out the details in the shadows, the 17-85 seems to have more details there than the 18-55 does. Also, with everything else being equal, wouldn't a picture with more contrast look sharper than that with less (after all, that's how sharpening works, by increasing contrasts in the borders). I think the 17-85 is giving you more to work with than the 18-55 is but if you're talking just about straight out of the camera, then your assessment about the two lenses seem to be correct. I guess it just depends on how much or little post processing you want to do with your images.

JZ[/QUOTE]

Jerry, as the others have said, they're pretty close and it's really hard to tell without a 100% crop. However, I will say this. Although the 17-85 seems to have less contrast, if you check out the details in the shadows, the 17-85 seems to have more details there than the 18-55 does. Also, with everything else being equal, wouldn't a picture with more contrast look sharper than that with less (after all, that's how sharpening works, by increasing contrasts in the borders). I think the 17-85 is giving you more to work with than the 18-55 is but if you're talking just about straight out of the camera, then your assessment about the two lenses seem to be correct. I guess it just depends on how much or little post processing you want to do with your images.[/QUOTE]

Leo, the pic's straight out of the camera made the 17-85 look even worse. I applied auto levels and the same usm to both. I still think the kit lens is just as good maybe a little better. Its disappointing to spend $600 and the lens not be a lot better than a $100 ell cheepo lens. The build it standard canon great. I just feel that its not up to snuff. I stil plan to do more testing as I really want this lens to work!!

JZaun, we share the same passions - shooting Canons and hand cannons! I have an XL650 also, loading .40 for IPSC. :P

MOLON LABE

Sorry, Jerry. I thought those pictures were straight out of the camera.

I must say, though. I don't envy your position. It's really hard to justify the big price difference between the two lenses if you're not sold on the image quality, even though the bulk of the lens price is due to the IS, the extended range of the lens and maybe the better build quality of the lens itself.

Good luck with your testing.

Jerry,

some thoughts...

- it's nearly impossible to compare the pictures at this resolution, however
- there doesn't seem to be a difference in 17mm and 18mm ... did you shoot both lenses at their widest setting?
- it seems the 18-55 handles distortion better on the wide end (take a look at the door in the first shot)

... so ... why don't you try out the 17-40/4.0 L?
Seems like the logical alternative...

Best regards,
Andy

Wow, the 18-55 doesn't look so bad compared to the 17-85 IS.

Seams to me an 18-55 and a 28-135IS would be a better combo, especially since the 17-85 isn't that fast for the price.

The Sigma and Tamron definately seams like a smart choice.