Shoul I buy a EF-S 17-85mm IS USM lens?

[ericyeow88]

Is this lens good? Thinking of upgrading from the basic 18-55mm kit lens.

[rendition]

Yes... A decent upgrade from the kit. Had it with my 40D, loved the range but it has severe distortion and CA at corners at wide end. IS in this lens works like a charm too.

That said, I would recommend getting a good 2nd hand copy (Between ~$400-$500) instead of new as its resale value isn't good. Good luck.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

[ericyeow88]

i see.. any idea whats the best price for the 17-85mm lens?
btw, is the 17-85mm able to take macro better than the 18-55mm? I also heard the 17-85mm has a wider wide angle.. is it true?

[bubbagump]

Why not consider a tamron 17 - 50 if you don't need the range. The fixed aperture will really come in handy. Better IQ then 17 - 85 too.

[ericyeow88]

how much is that?

[nottipiglet]

A used Tamron 17-50 goes for about $500 on B&S. But I recommend that you get this one from HK if you have friends going there. It sells for around $500-550 brand new in HK.

The EF 17-85 sells for about $480 or less on B&S.

The above prices are for condition 9+ to 10. So if you get those with some scratches, they will be cheaper.

I have used the 17-85 for a couple of years. It's a very useful range and IS is great. But be prepared to do some photoshopping to correct the distortion for things that look obvious when distorted, like buildings and stuff. The Tamron lacks IS, but you don't really need IS for that range if you handhold the camera well.

[bubbagump]

Originally Posted by nottipiglet A used Tamron 17-50 goes for about $500 on B&S. But I recommend that you get this one from HK if you have friends going there. It sells for around $500-550 brand new in HK. The EF 17-85 sells for about $480 or less on B&S. The above prices are for condition 9+ to 10. So if you get those with some scratches, they will be cheaper. I have used the 17-85 for a couple of years. It's a very useful range and IS is great. But be prepared to do some photoshopping to correct the distortion for things that look obvious when distorted, like buildings and stuff. The Tamron lacks IS, but you don't really need IS for that range if you handhold the camera well.

A new one goes for about $620 from MS colour based on the e-quote i got last month. Ultimately depends on what you want to shoot and how much you are willing to pay.

[calebk]

I do think the Tamron 17-50 is more worth it for its price point. Do consider that, as it has a constant maximum aperture of f/2.8. I personally feel the 17-85 is not much of an upgrade.

[rendition]

There ya go... lenses, can't have best of both worlds. Range, USM and IS or 2.8 and IQ.

[Lost Dog]

Go for 17-50 f2.8 instead of 17-85 IS.

[2evans]

Originally Posted by rendition There ya go... lenses, can't have best of both worlds. Range, USM and IS or 2.8 and IQ.

With a lot more money, canon's 17-55 could be included, so it would become:

Range, USM and IS or 2.8 and IQ. or USM, IS, 2.8 and IQ

[nottipiglet]

Originally Posted by bubbagump A new one goes for about $620 from MS colour based on the e-quote i got last month. Ultimately depends on what you want to shoot and how much you are willing to pay.

I think $620 for the 17-50 is quite ex... especially when you know that it sells for around $500 in HK.

To me, I think the value of 17-85 is around $480, and the 17-50 is around $500.

[rendition]

Well, one price is a bus ride away and another for a plane flight away. LOL.

[fibredrive]

hmm...if online prices are anything to go by, the tamron 17-50 is now about SG$485 in HK. Hope it stays this way next week...

[rendition]

Ooh, mind sharing with us the reliable HK online camera shop you referring to?

[fibredrive]

hi, saw it here...

http://www.price.com.hk/category.php?c=100043

cheers

[Lost Dog]

On another thought, instead of changing your 18-55 kit. might as well get another lens of another focal length. like 55-250mm. The 18-55mm IS is a good lens anyway.

[jeremyteocx]

well i personally think the 17-85 is not worth an upgrade from the kit lens ... guess u have to ask urself what is ur reason for any upgrade? if by any chance ur upgrading simply because 18-55 is a 'kit' lens, then plz dun because the 17-85 is also one. yes i'd rather u save the money either for a 17-50 tamron or if budget allow, a 17-40L or 17-55 ... at least they give u better aperture options/IQ. if u dun have the money, i think sticking with the 18-55 (which is a decent lens) is fine for now.

also, the upgrade is not worth it if its for that little extra focal length and USM. but don't get me wrong, if anyone started out with the 17-85, its a great lens too. my two cents

[ramian]

I too considered the 17-85 as an upgrade over the kit lens as it provided just slightly more reach as well as USM. I then considered what benefit the 17-85 had over my kit lens.

1. The AF on the kit lens was not all that far behind from USM (or HSM on the lenses that I own).
2. I don't really need the full-time manual focusing so no real benefit of additional USM on the 17-85 over my 18-55.
3. MTF charts show 18-55 is sharper centre and at edges than 17-85. Actual user shots (from P.O.T.N. forums) look "better" and "nicer" from former than latter.
4. I already have 55-250 which in theory (MTF) and in practice (P.O.T.N.) produces sharper and cleaner shots than 17-85 at same focal lengths.
5. I don't see need for f2.8 so Canon's 17-55 or Tamron/Sigma/Tokina's equivilents as f/2.8 is anyway not sufficient for indoor shots w/o flash.
6. I already have a flash and a sigma 30/1.4 for low-light photography.
7. The kit lens is really very good and is very capable of producing very good shots.

These reasons made me realise that since I already had my kit lens, the 17-85 (even 2nd hand) wasn't really worth it.

[jeremyteocx]

Originally Posted by ramian ... 5. I don't see need for f2.8 so Canon's 17-55 or Tamron/Sigma/Tokina's equivilents as f/2.8 is anyway not sufficient for indoor shots w/o flash. ...

abit off topic, but juz a point. f2.8 can b sufficient for indoor shots depending on lighting. and even if its not sufficient and u wan to use a flash, a f2.8 with high ISO and flash can give ur flash shot a more natural feel with sufficient ambient lighting ... saves some flash energy too