Reading mode: Light Dark

Is the Canon 17-85mm IS that bad?

Go to last post
P

peterm1

Veteran Member
Messages
1,348
Reaction score
3
Location
US
I am looking for a wider lens than my 24-70L for use on my 20D, especially when traveling. I also have the 35 f/2, 50 1.8, 85 1.8, and 70-200L IS, and the 18-55 kit lens.

I love image stabilization, and the range of the 17-85. I know that IS just helps with camera shake and not subject movement, but that's where the high ISO perfomance of the 20D helps.

I have considered the 17-40L, Sigma 18-50 and 15-30 and a few others, but their limited range or other issues don't really appeal to me. The Sigma 18-50 2.8 does seem nice and fast and sharp, although it's more limited on the wide and long ends than the 17-85IS and of course does not have IS. I don't need to go as wide as the forthcoming Canon 10-22.

I have heard about some CA issues with the 17-85IS, but since I shoot RAW can't some of that be addressed in the Adobe RAW converter? Are there other issues as well with this lens?

Finally, is this lens available now anywhere?

Thanks,

Peter
 
peterm1 said:
I have heard about some CA issues with the 17-85IS, but since I
shoot RAW can't some of that be addressed in the Adobe RAW
converter? Are there other issues as well with this lens?
Click to expand...
CA is worse in extreme conditions than with the 17-40 f/4 L, for example, but very tolerable.
peterm1 said:
Finally, is this lens available now anywhere?
Click to expand...
Yes .. I have one. I'm very pleased with it

See this link for some real-world examples (NOT mine):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=10449348

Phil
 
In a word, yes it's that bad.

I have the 24-70 and 17-40.

I tried the 17-85 as I was looking for a lighter/smaller alternative to the 24-70 that we could use to take snapshot like pictures while "walking around".

I couldn't stand the chromatic aberrations.

It's is not particularly sharp at the wide end, from 17mm to 24 or so. On the long end it's sharp.

Obviously color/contrast are not up to L- quality.

Build quality appears to be OK, consumer level.

I think the EF-S 18-55 is a better all around lens if you absolutely want a little better range than the 17-40. Price is much lower.

This lens is not a good value at US$600. I think it's worth closer to $250 - $300.

Based on the lenses you have in your arsenal now you wil not be happy with the image quality of the 17-85. Especially when you marry it up to a $1500 20D you (we) expect better performance.

If you need the wide end, I'd recommend the 17-40L. It's only $90 more than the 17-85 and image quality is 5 times better. It's sharp on the wide end, colors/contrast are great and faster.

And I think the IS is more a gimmick on this focal length lens and a way for Canon to increase the price.

Good luck,
-- Gregg
peterm1 said:
I am looking for a wider lens than my 24-70L for use on my 20D,
especially when traveling. I also have the 35 f/2, 50 1.8, 85 1.8,
and 70-200L IS, and the 18-55 kit lens.

I love image stabilization, and the range of the 17-85. I know
that IS just helps with camera shake and not subject movement, but
that's where the high ISO perfomance of the 20D helps.

I have considered the 17-40L, Sigma 18-50 and 15-30 and a few
others, but their limited range or other issues don't really appeal
to me. The Sigma 18-50 2.8 does seem nice and fast and sharp,
although it's more limited on the wide and long ends than the
17-85IS and of course does not have IS. I don't need to go as wide
as the forthcoming Canon 10-22.

I have heard about some CA issues with the 17-85IS, but since I
shoot RAW can't some of that be addressed in the Adobe RAW
converter? Are there other issues as well with this lens?

Finally, is this lens available now anywhere?

Thanks,

Peter
Click to expand...
 
Sorry, but I have to disagree.

CA is present but not "that" bad, it is fairly acceptable. Is a Digital Rebel "that" bad? It is compared to a 1D mII. CA occurs at the wide end and only on the edges of the picture, not in the center. It is sure a lot better than the 18-55. CA is not a real big issue

The lens is very sharp, a lot better than 28-135 IS. Stopped down 1 full stop, it is very hard to see the difference with 17-40L in terms of sharpness & contrast. In terms of distortion however, it is a different story.

The IS on the lens is a big advantage and works really well. 85mm is the equivalent of 135mm, requiring 1/135s shutterspeed. IS makes 1/15 possible if the subject is not moving while 1/4 will do for the 28 end.

Name one Canon lens equipped with IS and USM to be in the range of 200 - 300$??

Grrrippp
Gregg said:
I have the 24-70 and 17-40.

I tried the 17-85 as I was looking for a lighter/smaller
alternative to the 24-70 that we could use to take snapshot like
pictures while "walking around".

I couldn't stand the chromatic aberrations.

It's is not particularly sharp at the wide end, from 17mm to 24 or
so. On the long end it's sharp.

Obviously color/contrast are not up to L- quality.

Build quality appears to be OK, consumer level.

I think the EF-S 18-55 is a better all around lens if you
absolutely want a little better range than the 17-40. Price is
much lower.

This lens is not a good value at US$600. I think it's worth closer
to $250 - $300.

Based on the lenses you have in your arsenal now you wil not be
happy with the image quality of the 17-85. Especially when you
marry it up to a $1500 20D you (we) expect better performance.

If you need the wide end, I'd recommend the 17-40L. It's only $90
more than the 17-85 and image quality is 5 times better. It's
sharp on the wide end, colors/contrast are great and faster.

And I think the IS is more a gimmick on this focal length lens and
a way for Canon to increase the price.

Good luck,
-- Gregg
peterm1 said:
I am looking for a wider lens than my 24-70L for use on my 20D,
especially when traveling. I also have the 35 f/2, 50 1.8, 85 1.8,
and 70-200L IS, and the 18-55 kit lens.

I love image stabilization, and the range of the 17-85. I know
that IS just helps with camera shake and not subject movement, but
that's where the high ISO perfomance of the 20D helps.

I have considered the 17-40L, Sigma 18-50 and 15-30 and a few
others, but their limited range or other issues don't really appeal
to me. The Sigma 18-50 2.8 does seem nice and fast and sharp,
although it's more limited on the wide and long ends than the
17-85IS and of course does not have IS. I don't need to go as wide
as the forthcoming Canon 10-22.

I have heard about some CA issues with the 17-85IS, but since I
shoot RAW can't some of that be addressed in the Adobe RAW
converter? Are there other issues as well with this lens?

Finally, is this lens available now anywhere?

Thanks,

Peter
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I have both the 17-40 mm and the 17-85 mm and have done some comparisons. I feel that the 17-85 mm is good enough to replace the 17-40 mm for most applications. Wide open it exhibits a little more CA but if you are aware of this, there are ways around it. I have owned the 17-40 mm for about a year and was using it less and less. Maybe I had a bad copy but it exhibits far more distortion at 17 mm than the 17-85. The build quality of the 17-85 while not as good as the 17-40 is definitely better than the 28-135. Luminous Landscape has some very good things to say about this lens, also.
 
peterm1 said:
I have heard about some CA issues with the 17-85IS, but since I
shoot RAW can't some of that be addressed in the Adobe RAW
converter? Are there other issues as well with this lens?
Click to expand...
Sometimes it can be fully corrected. Sometimes it can be corrected but the general colors in the picture are skewed slightly as a result. Sometimes it cannot be corrected entirely.

I guess it's a question of personal tolerance towards CA in general, and to colors being slightly off. I hate both, so I sent it back. Mine also had a distinctive yellow color cast as compared to other lenses I have.
 
That's the beauty of these forums we get to express our views.

Maybe I had a bad copy but I have read other comments about this lens that agree with my observations regarding CA and softness at the wide end.

No way this lens compares to L optical quality. And I don't think I'm an L-snob. :)

If it suits your purposes and you are happy with the image quality that's great. It wasn't up to my expectations.

Oops I forgot about the USM, then maybe's it's worth $300- $350 tops still not close to $600. Not $90 less than the 17-40L.

I was hopeful this lens would fulfill a niche for me but regretfully it did not due to the poor image quality, especially for the price.

Peter will have to try a copy and see if it works for him.

BTW I bought my lens form Ritz Camera.com

Happy shooting,
-- Gregg
Grrrippp said:
CA is present but not "that" bad, it is fairly acceptable. Is a
Digital Rebel "that" bad? It is compared to a 1D mII. CA occurs at
the wide end and only on the edges of the picture, not in the
center. It is sure a lot better than the 18-55. CA is not a real
big issue

The lens is very sharp, a lot better than 28-135 IS. Stopped down 1
full stop, it is very hard to see the difference with 17-40L in
terms of sharpness & contrast. In terms of distortion however, it
is a different story.

The IS on the lens is a big advantage and works really well. 85mm
is the equivalent of 135mm, requiring 1/135s shutterspeed. IS makes
1/15 possible if the subject is not moving while 1/4 will do for
the 28 end.

Name one Canon lens equipped with IS and USM to be in the range of
200 - 300$??

Grrrippp
Gregg said:
I have the 24-70 and 17-40.

I tried the 17-85 as I was looking for a lighter/smaller
alternative to the 24-70 that we could use to take snapshot like
pictures while "walking around".

I couldn't stand the chromatic aberrations.

It's is not particularly sharp at the wide end, from 17mm to 24 or
so. On the long end it's sharp.

Obviously color/contrast are not up to L- quality.

Build quality appears to be OK, consumer level.

I think the EF-S 18-55 is a better all around lens if you
absolutely want a little better range than the 17-40. Price is
much lower.

This lens is not a good value at US$600. I think it's worth closer
to $250 - $300.

Based on the lenses you have in your arsenal now you wil not be
happy with the image quality of the 17-85. Especially when you
marry it up to a $1500 20D you (we) expect better performance.

If you need the wide end, I'd recommend the 17-40L. It's only $90
more than the 17-85 and image quality is 5 times better. It's
sharp on the wide end, colors/contrast are great and faster.

And I think the IS is more a gimmick on this focal length lens and
a way for Canon to increase the price.

Good luck,
-- Gregg
peterm1 said:
I am looking for a wider lens than my 24-70L for use on my 20D,
especially when traveling. I also have the 35 f/2, 50 1.8, 85 1.8,
and 70-200L IS, and the 18-55 kit lens.

I love image stabilization, and the range of the 17-85. I know
that IS just helps with camera shake and not subject movement, but
that's where the high ISO perfomance of the 20D helps.

I have considered the 17-40L, Sigma 18-50 and 15-30 and a few
others, but their limited range or other issues don't really appeal
to me. The Sigma 18-50 2.8 does seem nice and fast and sharp,
although it's more limited on the wide and long ends than the
17-85IS and of course does not have IS. I don't need to go as wide
as the forthcoming Canon 10-22.

I have heard about some CA issues with the 17-85IS, but since I
shoot RAW can't some of that be addressed in the Adobe RAW
converter? Are there other issues as well with this lens?

Finally, is this lens available now anywhere?

Thanks,

Peter
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Gregg said:
Maybe I had a bad copy but I have read other comments about this
lens that agree with my observations regarding CA and softness at
the wide end.
Click to expand...
That seems to be true, but what really should be compared is 17-40 L at f/4 and 17-85 IS at f/11...

For my shooting, I don't see any reason not to use IS at 17 mm.

Paul.
 
Jeff Pitman said:
I have both the 17-40 mm and the 17-85 mm and have done some
comparisons. I feel that the 17-85 mm is good enough to replace
the 17-40 mm for most applications. Wide open it exhibits a
little more CA but if you are aware of this, there are ways around
it. I have owned the 17-40 mm for about a year and was using it
less and less. Maybe I had a bad copy but it exhibits far more
distortion at 17 mm than the 17-85. The build quality of the 17-85
while not as good as the 17-40 is definitely better than the
28-135. Luminous Landscape has some very good things to say about
this lens, also.
Click to expand...
 
This is what I like about my Sigma 18-125. It has very little color cast and very little CA. Natural color is why I got into dSLRs in the first place !
Bo W said:
This is a 100% crop from the edge, 17 mm at f/5.



The result is repeatable.

BR / Bo
Click to expand...
 
Bo W said:
The result is repeatable.
Click to expand...
With your sample. And that is by far the worst example of CA I've seen with any lens in a long time. Are you sure you don't want to have Canon look at it?

I've been unable to get mine to do anything close to that gross. Some CA yes, but not really much worse than I can make my 17-40 f/4 IS produce if I work at it.

90-95% of shots show NO CA at 100%.

Phil
 
There is a fair amount of CA, but it's not that gross... Perhaps a little worse than my copy.

CA is very hard to avoid on contrastry zones, especially with wide angle lenses, because the angle of breaking is a lot greater than with a "normal" lens (white=all colours, reds have a different breaking index than blues/violets).

The 17-40 is not that better what CA concerns, the EFS-18-55 is a LOT worse. On the other hand, the 17-85 is also prone to vignetting wide open (f4) @17mm...
PC Wheeler said:
Bo W said:
The result is repeatable.
Click to expand...
With your sample. And that is by far the worst example of CA I've
seen with any lens in a long time. Are you sure you don't want to
have Canon look at it?

I've been unable to get mine to do anything close to that gross.
Some CA yes, but not really much worse than I can make my 17-40 f/4
IS produce if I work at it.

90-95% of shots show NO CA at 100%.

Phil
Click to expand...
 
because you don't show the same scene using different lenses. Maybe the 17-85 will exhibit more CA, maybe less than other lenses. Unfortunately, there is no possible way to tell that from your photo. It's useless.
 
PC Wheeler said:
Bo W said:
The result is repeatable.
Click to expand...
With your sample. And that is by far the worst example of CA I've
seen with any lens in a long time. Are you sure you don't want to
have Canon look at it?
Click to expand...
It's less than some shots I got with my copy !
PC Wheeler said:
I've been unable to get mine to do anything close to that gross.
Some CA yes, but not really much worse than I can make my 17-40 f/4
IS produce if I work at it.

90-95% of shots show NO CA at 100%.

Phil
Click to expand...
 
Steingrim said:
PC Wheeler said:
Bo W said:
The result is repeatable.
Click to expand...
With your sample. And that is by far the worst example of CA I've
seen with any lens in a long time. Are you sure you don't want to
have Canon look at it?
Click to expand...
It's less than some shots I got with my copy !
Steingrim said:
I've been unable to get mine to do anything close to that gross.
Some CA yes, but not really much worse than I can make my 17-40 f/4
IS produce if I work at it.

90-95% of shots show NO CA at 100%.

Phil
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top