Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS

A

amoreou

Messages
7
Name
Alexis
Edit My Images
No
HI there

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS

am upgrading from kit lens on 400D and am looking at this.. it site within my budget £300 - £400 and i wonder if anyone has one and what they think of it..

otherwise, my thoughts are:
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

i will be treavelling around bits of SE asia and i would like to take just one lens (unless anyone has thoughts about this as well)

thanks in advance
 
Free bump on this as I'm interested in peoples views on these two also...
 
I own the 28-135 IS USM, and as a carry around lens it comes up with some great results. The design does hark back to the 90s so it's only 'mode 1' handshake IS, no panning assistance here. At 28 the performance is fine, although you do have to watch out for a fair bit of CA, mostly purple and green but can be fixed in RAW import. Very sharp up to about 110mm, 135 is a bit of a stretch unless heavily stopped down. This lens lives on my 450D and takes the majority of my shots. Examples below

http://mattsgeneralphotos.fotopic.net/p60611287.html
http://mattsgeneralphotos.fotopic.net/p60062770.html
http://mattsgeneralphotos.fotopic.net/p60496855.html
http://mattsgeneralphotos.fotopic.net/p43119401.html
This next shot is taken at 28mm f/5.6
http://www.trainpics.net/p63124714.html
 
I had a 17-85 and really liked it - nice range, light, good IS etc. But optically it's not wonderful. Sharp enough, but a lot of CA, barrel distortion and vignetting. You can get rid of all those things very easily though by shooting Raw and running the files through DPP - the free Canon software you've got. Here's demo of DPP in action with that lens http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_17-85_4-5p6_is_usm_c16/page3.asp

My choice for your trip would be the new 15-85. It's a bit more money but a cracking lens and the extra 2mm at the wide end makes big difference. But there are loads of choices, and most of them good, including the 17-85 if you use the software, and even if you don't it's passable.
 
I've got the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS and as a first upgrade lens it's great. For the money it's about as good as it gets. I did a lot of research before I bought it and for the range and your price range, (the same range as I was looking for), I'd say go for it.

However, I always say that if you were looking for a new lens think seriously about it and if you can, save up a little more and buy the next lens up. But as we all know waiting for a new bit of kit is next to impossible...
 
I had a 17-85mm and I now have a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. The 17-85mm has a lot going for it, it has a good range, USM and IS but I just couldn't live with the distortion.

I know that the 17-85's woes can be to a large extent corrected post capture but do you really want to spend your life messing about with correction software on the computer?

I think it's best to start off with as good an image as possible and get as much right in camera as you can.
 
I've had both the IS kit lens and the 17-85. IMO the 17-85 isn't much better optically than the kit lens although it's nicer to use and better made. It's also a very flexible lens range-wise. I have the 17-55 now and it's a lot better - it should be for the money. As mentioned above the 15-85 seems like a better bet than the 17-85. If you do go for the 17-85 make sure you get a white box version for around £280. It definitely isn't worth the money if you pay full retail. Alternatively there's loads of them going second hand for around £200-250.
 
Thank,

i am also lookign at the Tamron 17 - 50 but wonder if its range stretches far enough for me (to be honest i tink it probably does) do you think this is better than the canon's of similar price?

Also does anyone have anything to say on the newer VC (IS) model... i will be taking this travelling and only hand held will do

Alternatively if i can stretch, or find one second hand, itll be the
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM
 
Have you considered Sigma?

I have recently purchased the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 OS HSM Macro. It was only released in December, so not many reviews up yet.

However, the older version without OS got good reviews.

I personally am really liking the lens. Very sharp pictures, good range (I too wanted a general lens for travelling, mainly for landscape, architecture etc).

I was caught between this and the Tamron 17-50mm non-VC, but having tested both, I preferred to have the option of an image stabiliser, and the difference in price was small - the Sigma is £399.99 new (from my local shop anyway).
 
I have the 17-85mm, although it is softer than other lenses, it does give me a good range for travelling.
 
The 17-85mm IS is a great lens for the money, ive had one for a while and its been a great walkabout lens with good range, great optics to in my opinion for the money.........Here are a few shots i took with mine very recently of a friends baby boy, these show what the lens is capable of.....:thumbs:
work.4489020.1.flat,550x550,075,f.jpg

work.4488590.1.flat,550x550,075,f.jpg


Also i have the one mentioned above for sale in the for sale section.......:thumbs:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=202310

Thanks Andy.....................:thumbs:
 
All the reviews I have read point towards the Tamron too, either the 17-50 or 28-75, both f2.8...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top