Top 5 worst Canon lens

Started Jun 12, 2006 | Discussions thread
Boky
Regular MemberPosts: 426
Like?
Re: jchoate....
In reply to shaynekrige, Jun 22, 2006

shaynekrige wrote:

I just got the 17-85 IS. I read a lot of reviews of the lens. It
seemed to me that most people were moaning about the price. When it
was launched, the lens seemed to cost as much as some of the L
lenses and people thought that the quality didn't justify the
price. I paid $450 new for mine so it was cheaper than an L lens. I
don't think cost is the issue with this lens anymore. Looking
through the tests, the lens actually performed very well. It was
pretty close to the primes and seemed better than most zooms with
equivalent ranges. I saw some awesome shots had been taken with the
lens. I compared it with some equivalent Sigma lenses and a 17-40L.
What really sealed the deal was being in a bar last weekend taking
photos of a band where a friend had the 17-85 and with the IS, all
of his photos came out. So, I decided to take a chance and buy one.

The lens is astoundingly good imho. People say it's "only" 31mm
more than the kit lens. Yeah, well 31mm more is 56% more range than
the kit lens (3x vs 5x zoom)! In practice, it makes a huge
difference.

Quality-wise, this lens is obviously in a different league to the
kit lens and feels sturdier than the Sigmas I looked at. It's
whisper quiet - something the Sigmas definitely are not. There is a
bit of barrel distortion at 17mm but I quite like the effect. I
haven't noticed CA at all. It's a bit heavy but it also feels solid
as a result.

I think this lens got a bad rep because it was expensive when it
came out. Obviously if you're buying a lens that goes from 17-85mm,
you're getting a compromise, but I think this lens is a great
compromise.

Quality-wise, this lens is obviously in a different league to the
kit lens and feels sturdier than the Sigmas I looked at. It's
whisper quiet - something the Sigmas definitely are not. There is a
bit of barrel distortion at 17mm but I quite like the effect. I
haven't noticed CA at all. It's a bit heavy but it also feels solid
as a result.

Try shooting the trees (by themselves, or as a part of the background scenery..) with a bit of sunlight coming through... you'll find horrible CA that can not be fixed easily. At AU$850 this lens is a joke....it's so bad that I can't express my disappointment...

I was Nikon film SLR user for 20+ years and bought my first DSLR - 350D mainly drawn because of the cheaper price compared to D70s... o boy did I regret it... the 2 kit lenses I got are completely unusable for daily shots (17-55 + 75-300). In a "controlled" environment they are not that bad... apart form softness... and barrel distortion... both fixable

I have only tested the 17-85 IS for a week; didn’t buy it!!! - borrowed from a friend of mine...

I do not blame the body for this, I blame Canon's policy to get you on board and force you to spend HUGE money for a decent lens.

My problem is: should I keep 350D body, sell the kit lenses and get better Canon lens (with around extra AU$1000 out of pocket), or

sell the whole Canon thing and get me for the same money a D70s and their kit lens (I think it's 18-70)...

Regards,
Boky

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
philNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow