17-85 Is

[Rhys]

I'm currently going through the 616 photos I took last week in DC. Mostly I used my new 17-85 IS on my XT.

I notice the focussing is snappy except after dusk. My Tamrons would not have focussed as well as the Canon glass hence I'm thinking of going all Canon.

The IS is pretty good. I even took one shot at 1/5th hand held and it's pin sharp.

[RichNY]

You must have a 'bad' copy of the Canon glass. Tamron's are supposed to be every bit as good as the Canon's- At least I know someone has posted that all off these forums at least 1000 times.;) :D

[Rhys]

You must have a 'bad' copy of the Canon glass. Tamron's are supposed to be every bit as good as the Canon's- At least I know someone has posted that all off these forums at least 1000 times.;) :D

After dusk my 17-85 focussed but took a little longer. My Tamrons would not have been able to focus at all in that light level.

There I was, cursing my XT when all the time it was the Tamron lenses that were the problem!

[RichNY]

There I was, cursing my XT when all the time it was the Tamron lenses that were the problem!

Newman.... err I mean Schapp;)

[JMWallace]

...and all that dusk performance at 4-5.6! Another reason for EOM!

[Rhys]

...and all that dusk performance at 4-5.6! Another reason for EOM!

I have some lovely horizontal streaks from car headlamps while the photo is crisp and sharp.

[forno]

this is what I want to hear:D

[Rhys]

Did I say sharp as a tack too?

[michaelb]

Did I say sharp as a tack too?

I've often considered picking up this lens second hand on FM just to give it a go and judge it for myself.

It seems that despite the often lack-luster reviews there are many die-hard owners who heartily defend this lens.

[Rhys]

I've often considered picking up this lens second hand on FM just to give it a go and judge it for myself.

It seems that despite the often lack-luster reviews there are many die-hard owners who heartily defend this lens.

1/4 second exposure - hand held.

[derekddd]

I'm currently going through the 616 photos I took last week in DC. Mostly I used my new 17-85 IS on my XT.

I notice the focussing is snappy except after dusk. My Tamrons would not have focussed as well as the Canon glass hence I'm thinking of going all Canon.

The IS is pretty good. I even took one shot at 1/5th hand held and it's pin sharp.

The IS is fantastic and under-rated , it is more effective than F2.8 aperture that often overly worshipped.

I think the Canon beats the Tamron 17-50 hands down with much better keeper rate.

People tend to forget about the real life usability or practicality is more important than the extreme sharpness at corner.

[nqjudo]

I've considered this lens on several occasions but the reviews keep scaring me away. Anyone else have any opinions on this lens?

[michaelb]

The IS is fantastic and under-rated , it is more effective than F2.8 aperture that often overly worshipped.

I think the Canon beats the Tamron 17-50 hands down with much better keeper rate.

People tend to forget about the real life usability or practicality is more important than the extreme sharpness at corner.

I agree with your last satement completely. I keep thinking about picking up a used copy of this lens off of FM just to give it a try; I just can't justify the 17-55 right now and I need IS more than I need f/2.8.

I would love the range and the IS especially, as I often shoot outdoors with filters in low light and I usually don't have a tripod.

Based on the extremely mixed reviews I have read I do wonder if there is more "sample variation" with this lens though, compared with some of Canon's "better" lenses.

[coldrain]

I agree with your last satement completely. I keep thinking about picking up a used copy of this lens off of FM just to give it a try; I just can't justify the 17-55 right now and I need IS more than I need f/2.8.

I would love the range and the IS especially, as I often shoot outdoors with filters in low light and I usually don't have a tripod.

Based on the extremely mixed reviews I have read I do wonder if there is more "sample variation" with this lens though, compared with some of Canon's "better" lenses.
Colour, contrast are just not all that impressive with this lens. The CA is not all that attractive either, but most lenses of this standard focal range have this problem.
The distortion at 17mm is very bad.

But for the rest it is a nice lens to have, just not a lens I would choose.
It is quite sharp, and with its IS and its USM it does offer quite a lot. If it had been a Nikon, it would be talked about much more positive, just look at how the D70 kit lens (the 18-70 f3.5-4.5 DX) is raved about (and that really is not such a great lens).