17-85 IS USM Lens Canon

S

samems

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,005
Edit My Images
No
Is the 17-85 canon a worthy buy 2nd hand these days? Got a 50mm 1.8 and fancy another lens. Not sure how much they go for 2nd hand but seen one of my friends has one and the range looks ideal for me.
 
i like mine.

Not the sharpest and suffers at 17mm but a good al round lens at a reasonable price.
 
Heard quite a few say they like the lens. Cant afford a Tam 17-50 so was thinking of the Canon 17-85
 
I have one and like it. The older ones are prone to error messages due to broken ribbon cables, and they can suffer from dust intake, get a newer lens and all should be ok.
Don't have any problems at 17mm personally.
SH should be £150-£250 depending on condition and age, new £270-£350.
 
wontolla said:
I have one and like it. The older ones are prone to error messages due to broken ribbon cables, and they can suffer from dust intake, get a newer lens and all should be ok.
Don't have any problems at 17mm personally.
SH should be £150-£250 depending on condition and age, new £270-£350.
Click to expand...

sorry by problems i meant Chromatic Aberrations at 17mm.
 
samems said:
How can i tell when one is the 'older' model?
Click to expand...

The easiest way is ask the seller! I dont think you can find out from the serial number like you do on the 'L' lenses. I have never found an answer to that anyway. BUT, it could be out there somewhere.
Have a look at THIS review and use it to make up your mind, It is not a bad lens at all, and the CA previously mentioned can be corrected in processing.
 
The 17-85 USM is a decent lens, but the 15-85 is a fantastic lens. The range is perfect for a walk-around and general purpose lens, and it is considerably sharper in the corners than the 17-85. The extra 2mm on the wide end is also quite a bit more of an increase in angle of view than you would think. It costs a bit more as well of course, but it would be well worth saving up an extra month or two to get a considerably better lens. Also, it resells very quickly and for a good price if you ever need to unload it.
 
arentol said:
The 17-85 USM is a decent lens, but the 15-85 is a fantastic lens. The range is perfect for a walk-around and general purpose lens, and it is considerably sharper in the corners than the 17-85. The extra 2mm on the wide end is also quite a bit more of an increase in angle of view than you would think. It costs a bit more as well of course, but it would be well worth saving up an extra month or two to get a considerably better lens. Also, it resells very quickly and for a good price if you ever need to unload it.
Click to expand...

What you say is correct, but the OP says he cannot afford the Tamron 17-50, so he certainly cannot afford the 15-85! :thumbs:
 
MPB Photographic have several secondhand copies of the 17-85 IS USM for just under £200. I've only had mine for less than a week but I love it.

Alan
 
If you intend on getting a used one, make sure the seller can verify that it stops down correctly throughout the entire focal range and that it doesn't throw up the ERR01 or ERR99 message.
It's a simple enough fix if you're good with small, fiddly things or if you're not it's approx a £60 repair. ;)
I use one as my 'walkabout' and though the IQ isn't exactly stunning it's decent enough and the ring USM makes for ultra-quick and silent focussing. :thumbs:
 
Hi

I've the 17-85IS and get along with it very well,

like others have said, there are better and more expensive lenses out there, but for the money, it's a good lens to get ...
 
wontolla said:
What you say is correct, but the OP says he cannot afford the Tamron 17-50, so he certainly cannot afford the 15-85! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Oops, missed that. Interesting though, as I though the 17-85 cost more (new) than the Tamron 17-50... Goes to show that it doesn't retain value as well I guess. But if buying used you benefit from that rather than suffer, so that is good.
 
Thanks people.

Would a 2nd hand Tamron 17-50 be a better bet than the 2 canons or is the 15-85 the best one?
 
Last edited:
samems said:
Thanks people.

Would a 2nd hand Tamron 17-50 be a better bet than the 2 canons or is the 15-85 the best one?
Click to expand...

I'd go with Tamron if you are ever going to shoot in the dim light.
17-85 is very average and not very impressive, particularly towards the ends.
 
arentol said:
The 17-85 USM is a decent lens, but the 15-85 is a fantastic lens. The range is perfect for a walk-around and general purpose lens, and it is considerably sharper in the corners than the 17-85. The extra 2mm on the wide end is also quite a bit more of an increase in angle of view than you would think. It costs a bit more as well of course, but it would be well worth saving up an extra month or two to get a considerably better lens. Also, it resells very quickly and for a good price if you ever need to unload it.
Click to expand...

If your going to save up for a better lens consider the 17-55 f2.8.
 
But, a Tamron 17-50 would be a better bet i guess. Thing is, i have a nifty fifty so would i be better off looking for a 2nd hand 15-85?
 
samems said:
But, a Tamron 17-50 would be a better bet i guess. Thing is, i have a nifty fifty so would i be better off looking for a 2nd hand 15-85?
Click to expand...

I don't think you'd find a 2nd hand Canon 15-85 cheaper than a 2nd hand Tamron 17-50 and in your initial posts you were saying you couldn't afford the Tamron.

If you can save up, then I'd save and get the lens you want, rather than getting a lens now that will do, because you can afford it ...
 
I have a 17-85 as a spare and for use as a walkabout on my 40D when the gf is using it.

It's a decent bit of glass. Yes it's not perfect but, considering you can picked them up used for circa £150, I reckon it's a bargain at that price.
 
andyred said:
I don't think you'd find a 2nd hand Canon 15-85 cheaper than a 2nd hand Tamron 17-50 and in your initial posts you were saying you couldn't afford the Tamron.

If you can save up, then I'd save and get the lens you want, rather than getting a lens now that will do, because you can afford it ...
Click to expand...

But, out of the 2, the 15-85 is the better buy as i already own a nifty fifty?
 
The 17-85mm is on par might be slightly better than the standard kit lens 18-55mm on IQs. It does have a great focal range, but performance is average. The 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 is the newer version and by all accounts is a great lens, betters optics and IS system, but even used your talking £450-550. The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 the better lens, 2 version (IS/non IS) IS being the newer version, great lens(es) for the money and a rival to the best walkabout lens for a cropped sensor the canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS EF-S. So personally its down to whether you need the extra focal length of the 15-85mm or faster optics of the 17-50mm.
 
when i bought my 40D a few years back, this came with it. Great little all rounder, now its mostly attached to my 20D which is a IR camera...and ive taken some great pictures with that...
 
The 18-135 is a very good lens by all accounts, a 28-135 on a crop is a bit too wide. ;)
 
I've had a 17-50 tamron and liked it but the focusing is just a bit variable, could be my camera tbh.
17-85 IS, had one and really liked it at first and then it started to wind me up. wideangle is horrible in cities with tall buildings
15-85mm not tried it but like the look and heard good things.
17-55mm IS is very nice but L glass prices
 
pete.rush said:
The 17-85mm is on par might be slightly better than the standard kit lens 18-55mm on IQs.
Click to expand...

unless you mean the non-IS version of the kit lens, most reviews would disagree with you.

For example, photozone.de says in its conclusion of the 18-55 IS:
There were a few moments when I considered not to publish the results due to "political correctness" because to date it was a quite absurd thought that such a cheap, or better "affordable", lens can perform this good and I'm sure that some will not believe the findings even though they're supported by the published field images. Anyway, the resolution capabilities of the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is nothing short of amazing. This is also surprising regarding the rather small changes in the optical design compared to the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II. Still - the center resolution is excellent throughout the range even at wide-open aperture. Unlike most dedicated APS-C standard zoom lenses it is capable to keep a very good level even at the extreme corners of the image field. Its resolution characteristic is similar to the (much higher priced) EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS at comparable aperture settings, quite a bit better than the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS and naturally vastly improved over its non-IS predecessor!
Click to expand...
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review?start=2

My own experiences with both lenses tends to go along with their conclusions.
 
Wozzaaah said:
The 18-135 is a very good lens by all accounts
Click to expand...
Mine wasn't. The CA was shocking. If you like your trees red and blue, it was the lens to use.

There again, I bought it based on the good reports, so I may have had a Friday afternoon model.
 
gridlock said:
Mine wasn't. The CA was shocking. If you like your trees red and blue, it was the lens to use.

There again, I bought it based on the good reports, so I may have had a Friday afternoon model.
Click to expand...

:agree: OK the 18-55mm wasn't great, mkii not much better, the IS for the money outlay is a better lens, but no way near the performance of the 17-55mm and from the reviews I've read they would back me up. Yes the 17-85mm is a very disappoint lens, especially with its price tag, and for the money the 18-55mm IS is a good starter, but most reviews recommend replacing it with something better.
 
If i had to choose between the 15-85 or the Tamron 17-50 which do you think i would be wise to buy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top