Anyone have any opinions on the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens?

[Skyline On Fire]

I need a walkabout lens urgently, Ive been borrowing my girlfriends 18-55IS kit lens off her 1000D (my 1000d never came with the IS version for some reason) And this lens seems pretty good for the price, and will do me until I get the 17-55f2.8 later this year, Il probably resell it then. Anyone have anything to say about it positive or negative? Just looking to gauge some opinions before I purchase. Thanks guys.

 

[Greenninja]

I have one.

(Focal lengths are approximate)

17-24 mm suffers from horrible light fall off in the corners. Some distortion

24-70mm sharp, good colour and contrast, not bad at all really

70-85mm goes a bit soft when wide open, but not too worringly.

It does suffer from mild to moderate CA - but I've seen worse.

Verdict - it's not a bad lens, it has flaws, but if you can live with them they're not to traumatic and most can be sorted in PP.

 

[riu]

I currently use an EF-S 17-85MM with my 450d, i am really pleased with the quality of the images from it, however i am a relative newcomer.
I have just decided to purchase a 7D and am unsure what it will perform like on the new body. I recently posted on the forum on what camera to upgrade too, and this was one of the replies i got.

"Your lenses consist of a EF-S 17-85mm, sigma 70-300mm apo dc, Canon 50 mm 1.8 mk11 and a Sigma 120-400 HSM.
A 7D will punish these lenses and it will show the issues with these lenses far more than your 450D would.
Personally I would consider either a 550D, 40D or 50D and invest in lenses.
The 7D is a fantastic camera but you do need top end lenses to get the best out of this body."

REGARDS
Steve

 

[guybrush]

I've used it a few times, I found it to be a very sturdy lens - the focussing is fast and it's built well, especially compared to the 18-55IS.

In terms of IQ, well it's a very cheap lens covering a wide focal range so you're really getting what you're paying for. I think you'll find it more enjoyable to use than the 18-55, but you'll certainly notice the superior quality of the 17-55 when you purchase that later on.

 

[Skyline On Fire]

Well quite honestly I don't mind the 18-55 right now! I mean sure it has its faults, but most things can be cleaned up in photoshop, I just hate the build. It feels so cheap and nasty compared to my 70-200 L etc...

Most of the time I'm shooting with my 70-200, and 50mm prime, it's just going to be a temporary walkabout lens so I don't have to keep stealing my girlfriends, I think Il go for it for now.

 

[guybrush]

Well quite honestly I don't mind the 18-55 right now! I mean sure it has its faults, but most things can be cleaned up in photoshop, I just hate the build. It feels so cheap and nasty compared to my 70-200 L etc...

Most of the time I'm shooting with my 70-200, and 50mm prime, it's just going to be a temporary walkabout lens so I don't have to keep stealing my girlfriends, I think Il go for it for now.

Amen to that. The 18-55 is not a bad lens in terms of the quality, far from it! But the build quality is just dreadful. That's why I packed it in and went for the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8-4.5 instead.

 

[Troglodyte]

I've had the 18-55 IS, the 17-85 and currently the 17-55.

The 17-55 is obviously by far the best of the three - it should be it costs enough. IMO the 17-85 is not optically that much better than the 18-55 IS. It's not much sharper, has ridiculous barrel distortion on the wide end and has a bit of CA at times.

On the other hand, it's pretty cheap second hand (there's a lot of them. Do not buy it new), has nice fast, quiet fast USM focussing and covers a good range. In short it's a nice lens to use. In build quality it's nearer the 17-55 than it is to the 18-55.

For it's new boxed price I wouldn't recommend it but for £200-£250 it's a good buy simply for the usability improvements.

 

[woof woof]

I had a 17-85mm.

The main problem for me was the huge amount of distortion at the wide end which was right at the very limit of what my software could correct and I remember reading one test site review which stated that the lens distorted more than any similar lens they'd tested. I've also read reviews which criticise other aspects of this lens such as excessive CA but to be honest that aspect of it's performance never bothered me. I'm sure that it's there if you look very closely but in prints up to A3 I thought that it just wasn't an issue. It was sharp enough too.

I did think that the range, IS and USM were lovely and I think that if you can live with the wide end distortion then maybe this lens makes sense but I personally couldn't and I replaced mine with a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8.