Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

[lundstrom.emil]

Blue Bells, Photographer Emil Lundström by imaginize.net, on Flickr

 

[dgatwood]

This lens is much maligned, but I find it to be a good general-purpose lens for when I don't want to carry a bunch of narrower zooms. Posting a few shots taken with this lens.


First, a few images shot with a 300D:

20mm, ISO 3200, 1/100 sec. f/7.1

26mm, ISO 3200, 1/25 sec. f/4.5


Now a few shot with an XTi:

17mm, ISO 100, 1.6 sec. f/4.0

85mm, ISO 400, 1/10 sec. f/5.6

17mm, ISO 400, 1/400 sec. f/14

28mm, ISO 400, 1/80 sec. f/7.1

17mm, ISO 1600, 1/1000 sec. f/20

17mm, ISO 100, 1/200 sec. f/9.0

85mm, ISO 1600, 1/60 sec. f/5.6

53mm, ISO 200, 1/100 sec. f/5.6

 

[tomscott]

I had this lens as my first standard upgrade lens in about 2006. I got some lovely photos but god its soft and distortion is redic. I ended up selling it and getting the 17-55mm missed the reach but the IQ was staggering in comparison.


Ullswater, Cumbria, Winter 2010 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

 

[dgatwood]

From what I've read, there's substantial variation between copies of this lens. Some early copies had a lot of slop (to such an extent that the zoom position changes under its own weight). Those copies are apparently a lot softer than good copies.

On good copies, the softness and vignetting are both most obvious when the aperture is wide open at the 17mm end (see the St. Peter's photo for a great example of vignetting). For me, it's not bad enough to give up the extra reach without having to change lenses. YMMV.

 

[Vossie]

When I was useing crop, this was my main walk around lens.

An oldie from 2007 from the El Doinyo Lengai vulcano in Tanzania. EOS 30D with 17-85 @22mm, ISO 100, 1/125, f/16, handheld.