Is the 17-85 IS really that bad?

[Michael49]

I have been searching for a replacement for my kit lens for my 350D for quite some time.

I currently have the kit lens (18-55) and 50mm 1.8

I have considered the following:

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Sigman 17-70

I was told to skip the Canon 17-85, that IQ is not so great.

But....the 17-85 just keeps popping into my mind. Perfect focal range with IS and not so pricey, like the 17-55 IS.

Is it really that bad?

 

[Paul De Bra]

The Canon 17-85IS has pretty good image quality, especially after CA correction. It has USM, and a very effective IS.

Unless you really need f/2.8 to stop action you can't go wrong with the 17-85IS. Most of my pictures are taken in the past 18 months or so are with the 17-85IS.

I have been searching for a replacement for my kit lens for my 350D
for quite some time.

I currently have the kit lens (18-55) and 50mm 1.8

I have considered the following:

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Sigman 17-70

I was told to skip the Canon 17-85, that IQ is not so great.

But....the 17-85 just keeps popping into my mind. Perfect focal
range with IS and not so pricey, like the 17-55 IS.

Is it really that bad?

--

Slowly learning to use the DRebel (only around 26.000 shots) and now also the Fuji F11.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .

 

[John Peplow]

The 17-85 IS is much better than the kit lens. There isn't a lens on the market that gives the same range and IS. Are there things about this lens that people don't like? Yes. There is some distortion and CA at certain focal lengths, which can easily be fixed in PP. It is not as good as L quality glass, but it will give you many clear, sharp pictures. It won't give you the same DOF opportunities that your 50 f/1.8 will give, nor is it as good as the 17-55 f/2.8. However for a walkaround lens it can't be beat for a price considerably below the 17-55. The IS is also the main selling point of this lens. You can get some amazing shots at very low shutter speeds handheld. That is worth it IMO.

 

[007peter]

Bad - Barrel Distortion @17mm
Bad - Purple Fringe
Bad - F4- 5.6 (kind of slow for me)

Good - One of the SHARPESS Zoom I've ever own.
Good - 67mm Filter = same as my 70-200 F4(L) great combo
Good - IS (version2) works well
Good - Light weight

Good - VERY VERY FAST USM SPEED! Yes, you can capture kids running around in this.

To answer your question, it depends on what you're looking for. If you like taking portrait pictures of "stationary" adult, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 wins. If you have a kid who runs left/right/ then sudden change of direction coming toward you or away from you. Stick with tha genuine Canon USM lens. This lens is FAST to AF, won't miss a momment with your kids. I'm leaning toward the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 myself, but I shoot adult more than I shoot kids.
---------------------
..FANBOY(i)sm is a NEUROSIS, Get Help!

 

[Kamran26]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=20573749

--
http://www.pbase.com/k_amj

 

[hkitty]

The IQ and sharpness is not that bad. Although I wish it to be a faster lens as with f/4-5.6, it doesn't work too well in low light situations but IS helps if the subject is stationary. All in all, I think it is a pretty good lens, especially the range. I'm thinking of getting the 24-105L to replace my 17-85 but I am worried that I will miss the 17-24 range...

 

[A Y]

Is the 17-85 IS really that bad?

See for yourself: (Warning! Large images!)
http://www.alyudesign.com/canon.html#1785

 

[Felix the Cat]

I bought the Sigma 17-70 instead of Canon 17-85. 17-70 is much cheaper than the 17-85 (in Canada). According to photozone.de, 17-70's image quality is better than 17-85. Tamron 17-50 was not available at that time. I am pretty happy with my 17-70.

 

[John Peplow]

The Sigma is less expensive for sure, but it does not have IS which was a major selling point for me.

 

[maxz]

i was expecting pretty lousy sharpness, dark corners, and bad CA from this consumer zoom. I was happily surprised. It's very compact and image quality if excellent. IS works very well during travel.

 

[AZak Johns]

To answer your question, it depends on what you're looking for. If
you like taking portrait pictures of "stationary" adult, Tamron
17-50 f/2.8 wins. If you have a kid who runs left/right/ then
sudden change of direction coming toward you or away from you.
Stick with tha genuine Canon USM lens. This lens is FAST to AF,
won't miss a momment with your kids. I'm leaning toward the Tamron
17-50 f2.8 myself, but I shoot adult more than I shoot kids.

Isn't it the other way round? With "stationary" adults, IS will actually help you, because your camera shake will cause blur. With running kids, IS is useless, because you will get motion blur. Instead, the fast apperture of 2.8 will help you here.

I'm not sure that AF speed makes a big difference here. The Tamron 17-50 AF is not slow, it is just loud. For moving kids you would set AF to servo, and the motor movements would be tiny.

 

[Michael49]

Bad - Barrel Distortion @17mm
Bad - Purple Fringe
Bad - F4- 5.6 (kind of slow for me)

Good - One of the SHARPESS Zoom I've ever own.
Good - 67mm Filter = same as my 70-200 F4(L) great combo
Good - IS (version2) works well
Good - Light weight
Good - VERY VERY FAST USM SPEED! Yes, you can capture kids running
around in this.

To answer your question, it depends on what you're looking for. If
you like taking portrait pictures of "stationary" adult, Tamron
17-50 f/2.8 wins. If you have a kid who runs left/right/ then
sudden change of direction coming toward you or away from you.
Stick with tha genuine Canon USM lens. This lens is FAST to AF,
won't miss a momment with your kids. I'm leaning toward the Tamron
17-50 f2.8 myself, but I shoot adult more than I shoot kids.
---------------------
..FANBOY(i)sm is a NEUROSIS, Get Help!

I take mainly outdoor landscape / "artistic" / nature shots. I do have the 50mm 1.8 for low light and portraits. I don't usually shoot kids.

What I want is good colors, contrast and decent sharpness.

I tend to shoot wide angle alot. In fact I might get an UWA in the future.

If the colors and contrast are decent, the 17-85mm with the IS especially would seem to fit the bill. I suppose I can fix the barrel distortion in PP.

 

[DominikT]

If you're looking for a lens for everyday or travel photography (mostly outdoor in sunlight) then this is a good enough lens, I got it with my 30D. And so I never used the kit lens... can't realy comment on it. Like others are saying it does distort the image a bit at 17mm and gives some vignetting but those are easily corrected in PS or lightroom. Overal I've been very happy with this lens, but I do find myself useing my 50 1.4 or 100 2.8 macro (nicely priced as well) lenses when IQ is my number 1 priority. IS is a real plus and having 17mm is great for city photography though. Realy depends if this is just a hobby for you or a serious hobby... I am itching to get some 'L' lenses myself now.

Good luck... I know how hard picking the right lens can be.
--
This is no longer a hobby... it's an obsession

 

[JohnnyBlood]

Overall it is a very good telephoto zoom lens and much, much better than the kit lens. Dollar for dollar, it is a good value.







Johnny

http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/

 

[Dave Sparks]

I like mine even at its "terrible" 17mm end:



Dave

 

[Isola Verde]

Here's a suggestion, if you've got distortion-removal software such as PTLens.

Download a few images taken with the lens you're interested in (from reviews, PBase's Camera library or similar) and try using it on them.

Particularly with those shot at the zoom's wider end, you'll find it applies a surprising amount of correction!

--

Peter - on the green island of Ischia
http://www.pbase.com/isolaverde

 

[rchwallace]

I have been using the 17-85 since it was released basically, just had it serviced for interior dust... There is some definite vingetting but for me it is only really an issue when I have a circular polarizer on the lens.

It is a great walk around lens light and with good image quality, excellent IS and a fast USM.

I would only consider replacing it for an L series piece of glass but as other posters have indicated I would not like to loose the 17-24 range in the lens. Though I also have the 10-22 and a 15mm fisheye I do alot of travel or city photography and am not interested in having to change lenses too often for that added creativity of the wider lens. Though I have them I dont use them enough.... I have looked at the 24-105 IS L, but would prefere it to be a 2.8 with the IS and will wait to see what comes out of the shop in the next while.

Anyway, my thoughts, good luck.
--
Photography which makes you think, photographic philosophy, this is the goal.
http://www.ronhayes.com

 

[Portrait_Photographer]

I have been searching for a replacement for my kit lens for my 350D
for quite some time.

I currently have the kit lens (18-55) and 50mm 1.8

I have considered the following:

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Sigman 17-70

I was told to skip the Canon 17-85, that IQ is not so great.

But....the 17-85 just keeps popping into my mind. Perfect focal
range with IS and not so pricey, like the 17-55 IS.

Is it really that bad?

I really is, same or even worse than the kit lens. The two other choices that you mentioned are much better. Here's a complete review of 17-70, it might help you decide http://peterbernik.blogspot.com/2006/12/in-this-post-im-going-to-write-down-my.html .