17-85 F/4-5.6 is usm

Hi guys! I am getting into more and more portrait photography and have a question for the more seasoned pros that I have been observing here. I already have a 50mm 1.4 canon lens that I am simply thrilled with but I find that with my limited studio space, a wider angle lens is needed for my full length shots. I am working with a limited budget, so any "L" glass is basically out of my price range. I am considering the Canon 17-85 F/4-5.6 IS and am wondering if anybody has any experience with this particular lens and its image quality. The 50mm has given me stellar image quality and I am basically wondering if I can expect the same kind of quality from the 17-85? I will be shooting almost exclusively with off camera strobes w/umbrellas for my indoor stuff and probably use some fill flash for the outdoor shots as well. I did a forum search and couldn't really find anything about this lens. I shoot with a Rebel XTI in full manual mode.......any pros and cons? Thanks in advance!

I haven't tried the lens in question, but I would recommend the 85mm F/1.8.

As mentioned in my post I am in need of a wider angle lens then my 50mm. I already own a 100 mm 2.8 for the really tight stuff but really need to be able to get a wider field of view without having to back up, as I am almost against the wall already! Thanks for the reply though!

I think the lens may do. Other options maybe the Sigma 17-70mm and Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (which would be my choice), and a sigma 24-60mm f2.8 which is under $200 online from Cameta camera.

Some thing you may want to watch out for are distortions at the wide end. Photozone.de has graphs of distortions as well, so you may want to check that out.

You'll find the 17-85 disappointing compared to the 50f/1.4. The Tamron 17-50 is a great choice, or even the 18-55IS if you're really on a budget. If you're prepared to accept the discipline of primes, the 24f/2.8 is a good choice as well, and often available quite cheaply on the used market since zooms have more sex appeal these days.

For portraiture a fast lens gives you more flexibility in terms of DoF control, so I'd go for the Tamron 17-50f/2.8 or a fast prime. IS won't give you anything as you'll be shooting at 1/250 for the flash anyway.

charlesking wrote in post #6229708
You'll find the 17-85 disappointing compared to the 50f/1.4. The Tamron 17-50 is a great choice, or even the 18-55IS if you're really on a budget. If you're prepared to accept the discipline of primes, the 24f/2.8 is a good choice as well, and often available quite cheaply on the used market since zooms have more sex appeal these days.

For portraiture a fast lens gives you more flexibility in terms of DoF control, so I'd go for the Tamron 17-50f/2.8 or a fast prime. IS won't give you anything as you'll be shooting at 1/250 for the flash anyway.

I was thinking that the image quality might not be up to par. I don't have any problem with foot zooming as long as i can go forward and not back, so a prime isn't out of the question either. I would just love to be able to do an entire portrait shoot without changing lenses for once. Maybe I should just save my pesos and get the L glass????? I really hate to do that though...............G​oing to look at the 24 F/2.8 now.....thanks!

Although I consider myself still a novice I regularly use my sons 40D 17-85 combination and there is a noticeable softness in IQ at the wide angle. This is evidently a common "fault" with this lens, however I find this lens to be a more suitable as a "walk around" lens, you seem to prefer faster lens for portraiture.
That said I find the overall quality of the 17-85 and 50 1.4 (I own & love this lens) to be on par. This may be because I am not the worlds steadiest photographer!

Point-n-shoot-n wrote in post #6229495
I already have a 50mm 1.4 canon lens that I am simply thrilled with but I find that with my limited studio space, a wider angle lens is needed for my full length shots. I am working with a limited budget, so any "L" glass is basically out of my price range.

Firstly, the 17-85 is rubbish compared to a prime. I've got it and it's been a total disappointment. It focuses nicely, but in actual picture quality you'd be better with the 18-55/IS kit lens. Neither lens will give you nice bokeh and you'd be stopping down even further to help quality.

Are you sure you can't consider the 17-40/4L? It's not as cheap as the 17-85 but it's not horribly expensive. Something that's faster would be better for portraits but I'm not sure you can do that cheaply.

There's enough distortion on the wide end of the 17-85 to make grown men cry, not particularly flattering if you plan to shoot portraits.

The image quality of the 17-85 will NOT be anywhere near as good as a 50mm f/1.4. That being said it should still deliver decent enough results when stopped down a little.

Edit: If you dont mind primes try the sigma 30mm f/1.4. I got a good copy on my first try and its been very good to me. I also wouldnt really want to go any wider then 30mm for portraits because of distortion.

i think you should seriously seriously consider the TAMRON 17-50 F/2.8. If you read and ask around, there are many many happy users out there.. There are a few reasons I would recommend this lens after reading your situation. 1. your budget, the lens is a bit more then the 17-85 brand new. 2. the image quality is excellent. 3. its at the wide angle you are needing 4. f/2.8 aperture is extremely important for portraits to set the background out of focus. I think its one of the best bang for the buck lenses you get get next to the 70-200 f/4, 100mm macro, and 50 1.8. If you look around, in order to get a zoom lens with a constant aperture of f/2.8 you need to pay big $$ and its usually L. so the Tamron 17-50 is a steal.