Is ES-F17-85 too dark a lens

I was going to buy the above but saw that the aperture in smaller than my 10-22. Seems it might be a bit dark. I'm I right in this assumption. Seems alot of people are buying it as an alround lens though?

Simon

It might not be as fast, but the IS should compensate for that.

i'm less than impressed with the 17-85

i guess im spoiled by 2.8 and lower

I think its over priced for at present gimmicky lens. The better value would be the kit lens and the extra money going toward a 24-70f/2.8. The IS is good for shake, but it won't give you good bokeh like a faster lens.

Is bokeh quality affected by the maximum aperture? I thought the amount would be affected, but not so much the quality.

The Tamron 28-75 F2.8 is my pick of walkaround lens, though i'm really enjoying my new Tokina 12-24 F4.

The larger the aperature the greater the defocusing factor the better the bokeh!!!

It doesn't appear too dark in the viewfinder.

however bear in mind you are not paying for an increase in optical quality relative to it's price. The extra money goes on the Image Stabilisation, the better build quality / metal mount, distance scale, longer zoom range, USM and Full Time Manual Focus and it's made in Japan (compared to the kit lens price)

The slow speed does sort of seem like a handicap, but I compared it to my f1.4 lens and in low light circumstances the f1.4 lens was running ISO 1600 at 1/20 and the 17-85mm was doing 1/2 sec at f4 with ISO 1600 on the same scene. Basically I struggled with the f1.4 lens at 1/20 because of camera shake, and in shots where I was able to hold the camera still enough, the depth of field was limiting with only the eye or nose in focus.

The 17-85mm with 1/2 sec is admittedly also a challange but it seemed easier to get a steady shot at 1/2 (3 stops difference) with IS than at 1/20 without IS. Depth of field was not a limitation in this instance with more in focus.

The normal argument is IS is no good for moving kids. In my experience f1.4 is not that good for moving kids either as they move out of your (thin slither) depth of field too quick. Movement is no good for IS either of course, but at least you can be 'predator' and prey on the kids and wait until they are stationary and 'SNAP'. The f1.4 lens still had the 1/20 low shutter speed obstacle and camera shake.

So in this circumstance the f1.4 lens lost out a bit, and the 17-85mm held it's own at f4. If the subject matter was non moving the 17-85mm would have trashed the f1.4 lens. (The 17-85mm IS can focus incredibly well in the dark too at f4, my Sigma f1.4 lens was hunting for focus - perhaps due to it's slither of focus at f1.4)

However if the environment is a bit brighter and furnished with more light so the f1.4 lens can run at 1/30+ shutter speeds than the result would have been different.

The focus operation of 17-85 IS is better than Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 lens on 20D, despite being f.5.6 wide open.
The Tamron hunt faster when getting dark and if the flash is open, the flash assist turn-on much more often than the IS.

You can manualy underexpose by a stop and reach that 1/40s with your f1.4. If shooting in raw, it's so easy to restore on the computer it's not even funny

this is an amazing statement.............​.. but what's even more confusing is the constant "you gotta get the 24-70f/2.8L" statements i keep seeing on the boards.
please tell us why this is such a must have lens?
people that recommend the 17-40 are just as bad as they claim it is the superior lens and that the 17-85 is inferior mainly due to it's f/4 speed........well that's the speed of the 17-40...............and with the 24-70, how many pictures are posted on the web that were shot at f/2.8?
not that many , why?....because it isn't the sharpest lens at f/2.8.
now if we are talkning about 100% size images that people are only happy looking at, then yes there are differences, but at normal viewing size, the 17-85 will hold it's own quite nicely.
i owned a good copy of the 17-40 and the 24-70 and thought for sure i had the best!!......tell you what, they are good lenses, well built (what you pay for) and weather sealed, but i am glad i sold them and bought the 17-85..........pictures i was missing are now easier to get cause i am not switching lenses at the time i need to go wide, or when i need a bit longer than 70mm.
if distortion at 17mm is a concern, then use PTLens and it'll eliminate the distortion and no ill effects to the image.
as for being "too dark"........have you tried one yet?
do you really think Canon would design and sell such a lens if they hadn't tested it and considered what the photography world would expect? (at least people who look at pictures the right way)
sorry to get on the soap box, but this misinformation to newbies is so out of control that it's scary.

I would say this is not strictly true - the larger the aperture the easier it is to blur the background however the QUALITY of the bokeh is determined by how circular the aperture is. For what it's worth the 17-85 produces nice smooth bokeh thanks to its circular aperture.

Comparisons between the 24-70L and the 17-85 seem a bit pointless to me. The 17-85 costs half the price of the 24-70, is smaller and half the weight of the 24-70 and has a greater focal range at both ends. The 17-85 is designed to be a good all rounder, it is not trying to be L glass.