PDA

View Full Version : Experience from EF-S 17-85mm?



JKO
03-31-2005, 11:43 PM
Hi,

I am lloking for an upgrade to my kit-lens to the 350D (XT). I want "one-lens-only" and wonder if the EF-S 17-85 is worth the money as it is quite expensive. Or should I go for a cheaper Sigma lense 18-50 or similar. I like to shoot close ups and to blur the background. In the same time I would like to have good DOF for landscape and group photos. I am willing to pay for a good lens, but I read from some other forums that the Canon 17-85 got thumbs down for a lens at this price.

Any suggestions?

ReF
04-01-2005, 01:36 AM
Hi,

I am lloking for an upgrade to my kit-lens to the 350D (XT). I want "one-lens-only" and wonder if the EF-S 17-85 is worth the money as it is quite expensive. Or should I go for a cheaper Sigma lense 18-50 or similar. I like to shoot close ups and to blur the background. In the same time I would like to have good DOF for landscape and group photos. I am willing to pay for a good lens, but I read from some other forums that the Canon 17-85 got thumbs down for a lens at this price.

Any suggestions?

i know a few of yall have read this from me before, but i'll say it again. i owned the 17-85 for about 3 weeks and returned it. compared to the 28-135 IS that i also have, the 17-85 lacked in sharpness and contrast, plus it costs $200 more. the 17-85 controlled flare much better though. still, i personally don't think it's worth that much $$$

since you already have the kit lens to cover the wide end, the 28-135 IS is an option if you really need IS.
if you really want "one lens only" then could try looking at the following:

tokina 24-200
tamron 28-75 f2.8!
tamron 24-135
sigma 24-70 3.5-5.6 (very low price)
sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX
sigma 18-125 DC (digital only, just like the 17-85)

i haven't tried any of the listed except the 28-135 but you can find reviews at: fredmiranda.com/reviews/
all the lenses i listed got rated pretty well. keep in mind that price is a consideration in the ratings though. overall i am pretty happy with the 28-135 IS (I love having IS, especially at 200mm+) and since i usually shoot between f8-16 (i never shoot below 5.6) the images i get from this lens are pretty darn comparable to my "L" lens.

TheObiJuan
04-01-2005, 02:52 AM
since I got my 350D camera shake is nonexistant. I do plenty of lowlight photography too. I have a fast f/1.8 lens and in conjuction with very clean High ISO I don't every have issues with it!
I would stay clear from the 17-85. A friend with a 20D purchased it and has hardly used it...
I am going to have 3 lenses. The Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-f/4, 50mm f/1.8, and 70-200 f/2.8 along with the trusty 1.4x extender.
It will all fit in a small shoulder bag and I can change lenses on the go. The quality trade offs and/or slow lens options for the big zoom lenses is too much for me.
I wish the sigma 18-200 was faster!

JayK
04-04-2005, 05:01 PM
Hi,

I am lloking for an upgrade to my kit-lens to the 350D (XT). I want "one-lens-only" and wonder if the EF-S 17-85 is worth the money as it is quite expensive. Or should I go for a cheaper Sigma lense 18-50 or similar. I like to shoot close ups and to blur the background. In the same time I would like to have good DOF for landscape and group photos. I am willing to pay for a good lens, but I read from some other forums that the Canon 17-85 got thumbs down for a lens at this price.

Any suggestions?
Yeah. It IS very pricey, as I am looking at it myself. However, you cannot begin to compare the quality of a true Canon lens with a third party lens.. Canon winds hands down.

eagle17
04-04-2005, 05:22 PM
Yeah. It IS very pricey, as I am looking at it myself. However, you cannot begin to compare the quality of a true Canon lens with a third party lens.. Canon winds hands down.

I have to disagree with this comment. Although many canon lenses are far better than some of the third party lenses i have used many third party lenses that are far better than some canon lenses.

basicly the pro lenses from sigma have great build quality and many of them have very good sharpness. I would say that the sigma ex lenses are better than the canon consumer lenses which the 17-85 is part of. In fact I think that my 18-125 blows away the 17-85 in every test shot I took. But like I have stated in every post about the 17-85, take your camera to a camera store near you and go in a take some pictures. ask to borrow a third party lens like the sigma 18-125 DC or the tamron 28-75 XR Di and take the same shots... make sure you get some good pictures showing high contrast back-lit items are good. then go home and look at your images in your favorite editor you will soon see what many of us also found... for the money you are far better of getting the canon 17-40 F4L or like I did get the sigma 18-125 and the canon 50 f1.8 II.

good luck in finding a lens for your new camera.. also let me say that if you are only planning on shooting 5x7 prints or smaller without cropping than just about any lens will be just fine.

ReF
04-04-2005, 09:20 PM
i agree that there are many good third party lenses that can be better than some of the canon lenses or come very close and only cost a fraction of the price. it seems to me that the main problem with third party lenses is quality control. i own three canon lenses and recently purchased a sigma lens becasue all reviews i have read indicate that the sigma was superior to the canon equivalent and was cheaper to boot. i have not read about a single instance of anyone recieving a "dud" of this lens either so i felt it was okay to order online instead of trying it out at a store. i'll be recieving it on the 6th so hopefully sigma won't let me down. you can read lens reviews on fredmiranda.com