Skip to Content

Canon 17-85mm USM L IS lens - any good?

Discuss and share your wildlife photography, filming and equipment

Moderator: lion queen

User avatar
DinkyBird
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 46136
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 5:54 pm
Location: Across the Equator, otherside the Atlantic

Canon 17-85mm USM L IS lens - any good?

Unread postby DinkyBird » Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:05 pm

Heard conflicting reports on this lens....

Help!! It is pricey. What might be a good alternative? Is the IS useful on a short lens like this?
Sawubona
Dalene

User avatar
bert
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Posts: 17192
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands

Re: Canon 17-85mm USM L IS lens - any good?

Unread postby bert » Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:15 pm

DinkyBird wrote:Heard conflicting reports on this lens....

Help!! It is pricey. What might be a good alternative? Is the IS useful on a short lens like this?


Imo to expensive
When using for landscaping i always make pictures from a tripod/solid beanbag and therefore imo IS is not a necessity
Landscapes generally dont move like animals

My recent tripreport landscape of Sweni was made from a tripod with long exposure the capture the reflection of the reeds in the water.

User avatar
DinkyBird
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 46136
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 5:54 pm
Location: Across the Equator, otherside the Atlantic

Unread postby DinkyBird » Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:23 pm

Thanks Bert - what do you recommend as an alternative?
Sawubona
Dalene

User avatar
bert
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Posts: 17192
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands

Unread postby bert » Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:51 pm

I would go for a 12-24 mm as altenative
With the sensor at 1.5 you have 35 mm
Very satisfied with a Tokina12-24 F4 which has been tested in Europe a equal or even with better glass quality that Canon

User avatar
delboysafa
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 218
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:48 pm
Location: From East London S.A., but living in Surrey, UK

Unread postby delboysafa » Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:15 pm

I have the 17-85mm and if I am honest, I dont rate it very highly. Its not even close to the sharpness of my L lenses. But, it covers a range for me. Am saving like made for the 16-35mm L F2.8, but will take me a while :D

User avatar
Craig
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Durban, South Africa

Unread postby Craig » Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:19 am

delboysafa wrote:I have the 17-85mm and if I am honest, I dont rate it very highly. Its not even close to the sharpness of my L lenses. But, it covers a range for me. Am saving like made for the 16-35mm L F2.8, but will take me a while :D


I agree with Delboy. I bought this lens because I wanted a wide lens that would cover the range all the way up to where my 70-200mm starts.

While I do use the lens it is not my favourite. I find that at the wider end it has quite bad chomatic abberation which detracts from the quality of the photo. This is something that I don't consider acceptable in a supposedly quality lens. Besides that though I think it's an OK lens. I think that as long as the lens is used between 24mm and 85mm it is ok, but wider than 24mm you get the CA.

The build quality is excellent though, not flimsy and wobbly like the bundled 18-55mm lens, although I don't remember getting the amount of CA on my 18-55 as I do on the 17-85,

As for the price, probably not worth what it costs. I'd recommend it if you could find a second hand one cheaply.

Cheers
Craig

User avatar
DinkyBird
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 46136
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 5:54 pm
Location: Across the Equator, otherside the Atlantic

Unread postby DinkyBird » Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:24 am

Thanks guys for your comments!
Sawubona
Dalene


Return to “Wildlife Photography Enthusiasts”