Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon 20D with 17-85mm - User comments pls

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 7:40:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've been looking at the 20D for awhile and would like comments
from users that have the 17-85mm lens.


--
Scott in Florida
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 7:40:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I should invite you to www.dpreview.com

However, what I have read there indicates that this lens is sharp,
contrasty, focuses fast and accuratly, many people really like the
Image Stabilization feature. It is a much better lens than the 18-55.
Its only drawbacks are A) a touch of chromatic aberation (not that much
for a 5X zoom but slightly more than the similar Nikon 17-80?), and B)
it cost just about the same as the 17-40 F/4 L USM lens which is known
to be a superb lens but covers a much easier 2.5X zoom range and
without IS. The 17-85 is a solid mid-range zoom lens.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 7:40:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I bought this camera (with the 17-85mm lens) about a month ago and have
absolutely no complaints...it is simply amazing!!! I also use an old
lens (up to 300mm) with it from an old EOS Rebel and that takes
excellent pictures as well.

jim

www.see-my-pictures.com
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 7:40:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:ijnvu05vhjup92k50rqfk438tcuc8qbjma@4ax.com...
> I've been looking at the 20D for awhile and would like comments
> from users that have the 17-85mm lens.
>

In my own testing between the 17-85 and 18-55 I found the 18-55 to be
optically a little sharper in the corners and to suffer less from chromatic
aberration.
If it was my decission, I wouldn't waste money on the 17-85 and instead get
the
18-55 + another lens like the 70-200L F4 (awesome lens that can be had for
550$).
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 8:15:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott in Florida wrote:
> I've been looking at the 20D for awhile and would like comments
> from users that have the 17-85mm lens.

I bought the combo not long ago and I have been very pleased with it.
They were both a little better than I expected.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 8:41:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 20 Jan 2005 09:00:26 -0800, chamb1@gmail.com wrote:

>I bought this camera (with the 17-85mm lens) about a month ago and have
>absolutely no complaints...it is simply amazing!!! I also use an old
>lens (up to 300mm) with it from an old EOS Rebel and that takes
>excellent pictures as well.
>
>jim
>
>www.see-my-pictures.com

Many thanks, jim!

I guess what you are saying is I should stop dreaming and help
the world economy and get it? <g>

--
Scott in Florida
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 8:43:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 20 Jan 2005 08:53:58 -0800, MitchAlsup@aol.com wrote:

>I should invite you to www.dpreview.com
>
>However, what I have read there indicates that this lens is sharp,
>contrasty, focuses fast and accuratly, many people really like the
>Image Stabilization feature. It is a much better lens than the 18-55.
>Its only drawbacks are A) a touch of chromatic aberation (not that much
>for a 5X zoom but slightly more than the similar Nikon 17-80?), and B)
>it cost just about the same as the 17-40 F/4 L USM lens which is known
>to be a superb lens but covers a much easier 2.5X zoom range and
>without IS. The 17-85 is a solid mid-range zoom lens.


It looks (from my research) to be just about perfect for the type of
shooting I do.

I'm trying to figure out a good way to take a 20D on my kayaking
trips...


--
Scott in Florida
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 8:44:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:15:33 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
<sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Scott in Florida wrote:
>> I've been looking at the 20D for awhile and would like comments
>> from users that have the 17-85mm lens.
>
> I bought the combo not long ago and I have been very pleased with it.
>They were both a little better than I expected.

I'm sure you have been asked a number of times before...but could
you indulge me with the answer...

pls explain Irish math...


--
Scott in Florida
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 9:17:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott in Florida wrote:
> I've been looking at the 20D for awhile and would like comments
> from users that have the 17-85mm lens.
>
>
> --
> Scott in Florida

A perfect lens, it is not; otherwise, it's a hell-of-a-good lens and a
good mate to the 20D.

nick
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 10:30:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott in Florida wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:15:33 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
> <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Scott in Florida wrote:
>>> I've been looking at the 20D for awhile and would like comments
>>> from users that have the 17-85mm lens.
>>
>> I bought the combo not long ago and I have been very pleased with
>> it. They were both a little better than I expected.
>
> I'm sure you have been asked a number of times before...but could
> you indulge me with the answer...
>
> pls explain Irish math...

26 Counties in the Republic of Ireland plus 6 Counties in North Ireland
= One whole. As it was before it was before the English divided it as I
hope to see as it well be again, with justice and freedom for all.

--
Joseph Meehan
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 1:59:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:30:06 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
<sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Scott in Florida wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:15:33 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
>> <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Scott in Florida wrote:
>>>> I've been looking at the 20D for awhile and would like comments
>>>> from users that have the 17-85mm lens.
>>>
>>> I bought the combo not long ago and I have been very pleased with
>>> it. They were both a little better than I expected.
>>
>> I'm sure you have been asked a number of times before...but could
>> you indulge me with the answer...
>>
>> pls explain Irish math...
>
> 26 Counties in the Republic of Ireland plus 6 Counties in North Ireland
>= One whole. As it was before it was before the English divided it as I
>hope to see as it well be again, with justice and freedom for all.

Thanks. Makes sense now!
--
Scott in Florida
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 2:02:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:04:51 -0500, "Dutch Flyer"
<dutchwings@bbnet.com> wrote:

>
>"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
>news:ijnvu05vhjup92k50rqfk438tcuc8qbjma@4ax.com...
>> I've been looking at the 20D for awhile and would like comments
>> from users that have the 17-85mm lens.
>>
>
>In my own testing between the 17-85 and 18-55 I found the 18-55 to be
>optically a little sharper in the corners and to suffer less from chromatic
>aberration.
>If it was my decission, I wouldn't waste money on the 17-85 and instead get
>the
>18-55 + another lens like the 70-200L F4 (awesome lens that can be had for
>550$).
>

I shall think about your suggestion!

tks!
--
Scott in Florida
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 2:32:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <ijnvu05vhjup92k50rqfk438tcuc8qbjma@4ax.com>,
Scott in Florida <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:

> I've been looking at the 20D for awhile and would like comments
> from users that have the 17-85mm lens.
>
>
> --
> Scott in Florida

Scott,

It's a great overall lens that I wouldn't hesitate purchasing as your
primary "walkaround" lens for your most elemental (non-specialized)
photography.

The only reason for not considering it is if you *never* or *rarely*
shoot at wide angles.

Its only real weak spot is a tad bit of softness wide open at 17mm, and
it may have a tendency to have a tad more chromatic aberration in
overexposed highlights than your typical "L" lens at the wide focal
lengths (~17-20mm). But these are not deal breakers *at all* since these
are things that are controllable in all but the most demanding
environments. Make no mistake: it is quite a bit better than the 18-55
EF-S.

At 17mm f/5.6 and smaller, in comparing it to my EF 28/2.8, I found it
to be as sharp and contrasty in every respect. At longer focal lengths
it is even sharper. Its quality at 85mm is astoundingly good for this
end of an inexpensive zoom (maybe that's why it's really not so
"inexpensive."). Color rendition and contrast are all of pretty much "L"
quality.

Some have wondered whether or not to just pay the extra $100-200 and go
with the 17-40L, but I do *not* think the 17-85 and the 17-40L are
mutually exclusive. The 17-85 is a lens that can be kept on for longer
periods of time to shoot a greater variety of things, reducing the
chances for your 20D's innards to get dust all over them. The 17-40L is
just a bit better (especially wide open) and can be used for those times
when more critical sharpness and reduced CA is required at the wide end
of things. I wouldn't hesitate getting the 17-85 and keeping the doors
open for *all* of Canon's other wonderful optics down the road.

In short, I doubt you will be disappointed with the 17-85. Avoid it only
if you don't need the great range and wide angle coverage it provides in
such a cost-effective and practical manner.

Drew

--
___________________________________________________________________
The Mac Orchard - http://www.macorchard.com/
Essential Internet Applications since 1995
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 2:52:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:32:11 GMT, "Drew D. Saur"
<dsaur@macorchard.com> wrote:

>In article <ijnvu05vhjup92k50rqfk438tcuc8qbjma@4ax.com>,
> Scott in Florida <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:
>
>> I've been looking at the 20D for awhile and would like comments
>> from users that have the 17-85mm lens.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Scott in Florida
>
>Scott,
>
>It's a great overall lens that I wouldn't hesitate purchasing as your
>primary "walkaround" lens for your most elemental (non-specialized)
>photography.
>
>The only reason for not considering it is if you *never* or *rarely*
>shoot at wide angles.

I do all kinds of stuff and with a good lens....no telling what I will
get into!

>
>Its only real weak spot is a tad bit of softness wide open at 17mm, and
>it may have a tendency to have a tad more chromatic aberration in
>overexposed highlights than your typical "L" lens at the wide focal
>lengths (~17-20mm). But these are not deal breakers *at all* since these
>are things that are controllable in all but the most demanding
>environments. Make no mistake: it is quite a bit better than the 18-55
>EF-S.
>
>At 17mm f/5.6 and smaller, in comparing it to my EF 28/2.8, I found it
>to be as sharp and contrasty in every respect. At longer focal lengths
>it is even sharper. Its quality at 85mm is astoundingly good for this
>end of an inexpensive zoom (maybe that's why it's really not so
>"inexpensive."). Color rendition and contrast are all of pretty much "L"
>quality.
>
>Some have wondered whether or not to just pay the extra $100-200 and go
>with the 17-40L, but I do *not* think the 17-85 and the 17-40L are
>mutually exclusive. The 17-85 is a lens that can be kept on for longer
>periods of time to shoot a greater variety of things, reducing the
>chances for your 20D's innards to get dust all over them. The 17-40L is
>just a bit better (especially wide open) and can be used for those times
>when more critical sharpness and reduced CA is required at the wide end
>of things. I wouldn't hesitate getting the 17-85 and keeping the doors
>open for *all* of Canon's other wonderful optics down the road.
>
>In short, I doubt you will be disappointed with the 17-85. Avoid it only
>if you don't need the great range and wide angle coverage it provides in
>such a cost-effective and practical manner.
>
>Drew

tks Drew for an excellent in depth answer. Seems this lens would be
an excellent 'most of the time' lens for my uses.

btw this is my first jump into the Canon club and there is much to
learn.

My start came with a Minolta SRT 101 back in the 60's. I progressed
up to the X-700 and then to the original Minolta 7000 (crossed X's)
auto focus Maxxum. That camera was with me on a number of trips to
the far east on 'business'<g>.

Last year I went back to a SRT 101 and enjoyed it immensely. My
younger brother decided that he needed to scare the s*it out of me and
took me on a white water rafting trip down the Colorado River in Utah.
The SRT did a GREAT job!

From what I've read....Canon has my interest in the digital SLR field.

I'm using an Olympus 400 now for point and shoot. It really works
well on kayaking trips and is water 'proof'.



--
Scott in Florida
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 3:53:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I use this combination professionally with great success. There is much to be said for having a lens that is fit for the vast majority of occassions and not worrying if it is absolutely perfect. I consider it to be excellent value and completely capable of stunning results. If you buy one lens, buy this one. www.davidchadwick.co.uk

--
Message posted via http://www.photokb.com
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 4:25:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I like mine. I find I use it 90-95% of the time and my 70-300 DO IS the
rest of the time.

My 17-40 f/4 L is a better lens in its range, but the 17-85IS has more
reach (5x zoom) and image stabilization. As a result, my wife gets to
use the 17-40 on her 300D.

Phil

Scott in Florida wrote:
> I've been looking at the 20D for awhile and would like comments
> from users that have the 17-85mm lens.
>
>
> --
> Scott in Florida
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 4:25:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've been following this thread with interest as I'm saving for a 20D and
have been pondering the 17-85 IS vs the 17-40 L. I appreciate the comments
re quality and reach and could see going for the 17-85 ... but ... can you
comment on the low-light focussing ability of the two lenses as the L holds
f/4 throughout the range?

TIA

SB

"Phil Wheeler" <w6tuh-ng5@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:CSYHd.63161$Ew6.23909@twister.socal.rr.com...
>I like mine. I find I use it 90-95% of the time and my 70-300 DO IS the
>rest of the time.
>
> My 17-40 f/4 L is a better lens in its range, but the 17-85IS has more
> reach (5x zoom) and image stabilization. As a result, my wife gets to use
> the 17-40 on her 300D.
>
> Phil
>
> Scott in Florida wrote:
>> I've been looking at the 20D for awhile and would like comments
>> from users that have the 17-85mm lens.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Scott in Florida
>
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 4:27:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott in Florida wrote:

>
> I'm trying to figure out a good way to take a 20D on my kayaking
> trips...
>

Hmmm .. too "sporty" for my blood: I have a Pentax 43WR for canoeing and
such. My 20D is too precious.

Phil
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 6:14:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Scott in Florida wrote:
>
> I've been looking at the 20D for awhile and would like comments
> from users that have the 17-85mm lens.

You might find this hands-on review of interest ...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/20d-l...

Bill
January 21, 2005 8:14:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Just my two bobs worth. The best bang for buck would go something like
this.
20D with the following

17 - 40 L series
50mm F1.8
70 - 200 L F4
400 L series F5.6 prime
1.4 telecon (Canon if you can afford it)
Cokin P filter system.
420EX flash.
055 pro tripod.
Micro/Mini Trekker backpack

With the above you have most basis covered for a reasonable outlay. Sports,
wildlife, scenic and portraiture. Yes there are better lenses etc out their
but they cost considerably more for the output. The only thing missing in
this rig in my view is a good macro capacity and I am working on that.

Well folk, anyone willing to throw up their bang for buck outfit.

regards

Don from Down Under.

The reason I like the 17 to 40 is for landscape work with the Cokin filter
system
"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20050120221415.15036.00000091@mb-m21.aol.com...
> >Scott in Florida wrote:
>>
>> I've been looking at the 20D for awhile and would like comments
>> from users that have the 17-85mm lens.
>
> You might find this hands-on review of interest ...
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/20d-l...
>
> Bill
>
>
January 21, 2005 8:57:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don wrote:
> Just my two bobs worth. The best bang for buck would go something like
> this.
> 20D with the following
>
> 17 - 40 L series
> 50mm F1.8
> 70 - 200 L F4
> 400 L series F5.6 prime
> 1.4 telecon (Canon if you can afford it)
> Cokin P filter system.
> 420EX flash.
> 055 pro tripod.
> Micro/Mini Trekker backpack
>
> With the above you have most basis covered for a reasonable outlay. Sports,
> wildlife, scenic and portraiture. Yes there are better lenses etc out their
> but they cost considerably more for the output. The only thing missing in
> this rig in my view is a good macro capacity and I am working on that.
>
> Well folk, anyone willing to throw up their bang for buck outfit.
>
> regards
>
> Don from Down Under.
>
> The reason I like the 17 to 40 is for landscape work with the Cokin filter
> system


That's about what I have.

I don't have a 1.4x teleconverter yet. I have a 300/4L IS. From the
reviews I read, 300/4L + 1.4x is better than 100-400L @ 400. I'd miss IS
very much at 400mm so I would prefer to settle for less magnification.

I have 50/1.4 for low light application.

I had the 100/2.8 macro but I sold it for 70-200/4L. I might get the
50/2.5 macro but not certain.

I also have the 17-40/4L and 580EX flash.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 9:07:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> It's a great overall lens that I wouldn't hesitate purchasing as your
> primary "walkaround" lens for your most elemental (non-specialized)
> photography.

Drew: Dumb question. Do you know the overall length of the camera + 17-85 IS
lens? I'm trying to figure out if it will fit into a handlebar bag (for my
bicycle) with lens attached.

Thanks-

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Drew D. Saur" <dsaur@macorchard.com> wrote in message
news:D saur-815B4B.18321120012005@syrcnyrdrs-03-ge0.nyroc.rr.com...
> In article <ijnvu05vhjup92k50rqfk438tcuc8qbjma@4ax.com>,
> Scott in Florida <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:
>
>> I've been looking at the 20D for awhile and would like comments
>> from users that have the 17-85mm lens.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Scott in Florida
>
> Scott,
>
> It's a great overall lens that I wouldn't hesitate purchasing as your
> primary "walkaround" lens for your most elemental (non-specialized)
> photography.
>
> The only reason for not considering it is if you *never* or *rarely*
> shoot at wide angles.
>
> Its only real weak spot is a tad bit of softness wide open at 17mm, and
> it may have a tendency to have a tad more chromatic aberration in
> overexposed highlights than your typical "L" lens at the wide focal
> lengths (~17-20mm). But these are not deal breakers *at all* since these
> are things that are controllable in all but the most demanding
> environments. Make no mistake: it is quite a bit better than the 18-55
> EF-S.
>
> At 17mm f/5.6 and smaller, in comparing it to my EF 28/2.8, I found it
> to be as sharp and contrasty in every respect. At longer focal lengths
> it is even sharper. Its quality at 85mm is astoundingly good for this
> end of an inexpensive zoom (maybe that's why it's really not so
> "inexpensive."). Color rendition and contrast are all of pretty much "L"
> quality.
>
> Some have wondered whether or not to just pay the extra $100-200 and go
> with the 17-40L, but I do *not* think the 17-85 and the 17-40L are
> mutually exclusive. The 17-85 is a lens that can be kept on for longer
> periods of time to shoot a greater variety of things, reducing the
> chances for your 20D's innards to get dust all over them. The 17-40L is
> just a bit better (especially wide open) and can be used for those times
> when more critical sharpness and reduced CA is required at the wide end
> of things. I wouldn't hesitate getting the 17-85 and keeping the doors
> open for *all* of Canon's other wonderful optics down the road.
>
> In short, I doubt you will be disappointed with the 17-85. Avoid it only
> if you don't need the great range and wide angle coverage it provides in
> such a cost-effective and practical manner.
>
> Drew
>
> --
> ___________________________________________________________________
> The Mac Orchard - http://www.macorchard.com/
> Essential Internet Applications since 1995
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 2:47:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don wrote:
> Just my two bobs worth. The best bang for buck would go something
> like this.
> 20D with the following
>
> 17 - 40 L series
> 50mm F1.8
> 70 - 200 L F4
> 400 L series F5.6 prime
> 1.4 telecon (Canon if you can afford it)
> Cokin P filter system.
> 420EX flash.
> 055 pro tripod.
> Micro/Mini Trekker backpack
>
> With the above you have most basis covered for a reasonable outlay.
> Sports, wildlife, scenic and portraiture. Yes there are better
> lenses etc out their but they cost considerably more for the output. The
> only thing missing in this rig in my view is a good macro
> capacity and I am working on that.
> Well folk, anyone willing to throw up their bang for buck outfit.
>
> regards
>
> Don from Down Under.
>
> The reason I like the 17 to 40 is for landscape work with the Cokin
> filter system
> "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote in message
> news:20050120221415.15036.00000091@mb-m21.aol.com...

For my use, you are a little light on the wide end. I would add the
Canon 10-22 zoom. Great for many of those scenic shoots and indoor groups,
like around the table or at parties like Christmas as well as interior and
exterior architecture.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 9:24:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 01:25:54 GMT, Phil Wheeler <w6tuh-ng5@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I like mine. I find I use it 90-95% of the time and my 70-300 DO IS the
>rest of the time.

I'm thinking that I'd use it most of the time for the stuff I do.

tks


>
>My 17-40 f/4 L is a better lens in its range, but the 17-85IS has more
>reach (5x zoom) and image stabilization. As a result, my wife gets to
>use the 17-40 on her 300D.

In other words...your wife 'lets' you use the 17-85? ;-)

>
>Phil
>
>Scott in Florida wrote:
>> I've been looking at the 20D for awhile and would like comments
>> from users that have the 17-85mm lens.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Scott in Florida

--
Scott in Florida
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 9:25:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 01:27:56 GMT, Phil Wheeler <w6tuh-ng5@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>
>Scott in Florida wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm trying to figure out a good way to take a 20D on my kayaking
>> trips...
>>
>
>Hmmm .. too "sporty" for my blood: I have a Pentax 43WR for canoeing and
>such. My 20D is too precious.

Well my yakin is done on a 'sit on top' and is rather mild, but I'm
not sure I want to risk a 20D on it...


>
>Phil

--
Scott in Florida
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 9:38:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 21 Jan 2005 03:14:15 GMT, bhilton665@aol.comedy (Bill Hilton)
wrote:

>>Scott in Florida wrote:
>>
>> I've been looking at the 20D for awhile and would like comments
>> from users that have the 17-85mm lens.
>
>You might find this hands-on review of interest ...
>
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/20d-l...

Many thanks....a good article and some very interesting pictures.

MANY years ago that poor sap being pulled along might have been me <g>
>
>Bill
>

--
Scott in Florida
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 4:07:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've not run any explicit low light focusing tests. But it seems to
always work. Can't test it now -- on loan for a wedding shoot.

Phil

SJB wrote:
> I've been following this thread with interest as I'm saving for a 20D and
> have been pondering the 17-85 IS vs the 17-40 L. I appreciate the comments
> re quality and reach and could see going for the 17-85 ... but ... can you
> comment on the low-light focussing ability of the two lenses as the L holds
> f/4 throughout the range?
>
> TIA
>
> SB
>
> "Phil Wheeler" <w6tuh-ng5@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:CSYHd.63161$Ew6.23909@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
>>I like mine. I find I use it 90-95% of the time and my 70-300 DO IS the
>>rest of the time.
>>
>>My 17-40 f/4 L is a better lens in its range, but the 17-85IS has more
>>reach (5x zoom) and image stabilization. As a result, my wife gets to use
>>the 17-40 on her 300D.
>>
>>Phil
>>
>>Scott in Florida wrote:
>>
>>>I've been looking at the 20D for awhile and would like comments
>>>from users that have the 17-85mm lens.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Scott in Florida
>>
>
>
January 22, 2005 1:21:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Joseph

I wouldn't mind the 10 to 20 but it is an EF-S lens and as I also have a 10D
I need lenses that will fit that as well as my 20D. However, your right
about being a bit light at the wide end. Just haven't worked out how to
cover of on it yet.

regards

Don
"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nZ5Id.5539$VZ2.4584@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
> Don wrote:
>> Just my two bobs worth. The best bang for buck would go something
>> like this.
>> 20D with the following
>>
>> 17 - 40 L series
>> 50mm F1.8
>> 70 - 200 L F4
>> 400 L series F5.6 prime
>> 1.4 telecon (Canon if you can afford it)
>> Cokin P filter system.
>> 420EX flash.
>> 055 pro tripod.
>> Micro/Mini Trekker backpack
>>
>> With the above you have most basis covered for a reasonable outlay.
>> Sports, wildlife, scenic and portraiture. Yes there are better
>> lenses etc out their but they cost considerably more for the output. The
>> only thing missing in this rig in my view is a good macro
>> capacity and I am working on that.
>> Well folk, anyone willing to throw up their bang for buck outfit.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Don from Down Under.
>>
>> The reason I like the 17 to 40 is for landscape work with the Cokin
>> filter system
>> "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.comedy> wrote in message
>> news:20050120221415.15036.00000091@mb-m21.aol.com...
>
> For my use, you are a little light on the wide end. I would add the
> Canon 10-22 zoom. Great for many of those scenic shoots and indoor
> groups, like around the table or at parties like Christmas as well as
> interior and exterior architecture.
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
>
> 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
>
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 7:00:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,

I've seen this question twice. Might as well get out the ruler
and measure:

20D body with 17-88mmIS lens attached
6.75" or about 13.5 cm including lens cap
and uv filter

I use a Lowepro Nova 2 AW which also holds my other
filters, batteries/charger/cables, and Speedlight 420ex.
When I get my next lens, I'll retire some things from this bag.

Cheers!
-bob


On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 06:07:29 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> It's a great overall lens that I wouldn't hesitate purchasing as your
>> primary "walkaround" lens for your most elemental (non-specialized)
>> photography.
>
>Drew: Dumb question. Do you know the overall length of the camera + 17-85 IS
>lens? I'm trying to figure out if it will fit into a handlebar bag (for my
>bicycle) with lens attached.
>
>Thanks-
>
>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
>"Drew D. Saur" <dsaur@macorchard.com> wrote in message
>news:D saur-815B4B.18321120012005@syrcnyrdrs-03-ge0.nyroc.rr.com...
>> In article <ijnvu05vhjup92k50rqfk438tcuc8qbjma@4ax.com>,
>> Scott in Florida <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been looking at the 20D for awhile and would like comments
>>> from users that have the 17-85mm lens.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Scott in Florida
>>
>> Scott,
>>
>> It's a great overall lens that I wouldn't hesitate purchasing as your
>> primary "walkaround" lens for your most elemental (non-specialized)
>> photography.
>>
>> The only reason for not considering it is if you *never* or *rarely*
>> shoot at wide angles.
>>
>> Its only real weak spot is a tad bit of softness wide open at 17mm, and
>> it may have a tendency to have a tad more chromatic aberration in
>> overexposed highlights than your typical "L" lens at the wide focal
>> lengths (~17-20mm). But these are not deal breakers *at all* since these
>> are things that are controllable in all but the most demanding
>> environments. Make no mistake: it is quite a bit better than the 18-55
>> EF-S.
>>
>> At 17mm f/5.6 and smaller, in comparing it to my EF 28/2.8, I found it
>> to be as sharp and contrasty in every respect. At longer focal lengths
>> it is even sharper. Its quality at 85mm is astoundingly good for this
>> end of an inexpensive zoom (maybe that's why it's really not so
>> "inexpensive."). Color rendition and contrast are all of pretty much "L"
>> quality.
>>
>> Some have wondered whether or not to just pay the extra $100-200 and go
>> with the 17-40L, but I do *not* think the 17-85 and the 17-40L are
>> mutually exclusive. The 17-85 is a lens that can be kept on for longer
>> periods of time to shoot a greater variety of things, reducing the
>> chances for your 20D's innards to get dust all over them. The 17-40L is
>> just a bit better (especially wide open) and can be used for those times
>> when more critical sharpness and reduced CA is required at the wide end
>> of things. I wouldn't hesitate getting the 17-85 and keeping the doors
>> open for *all* of Canon's other wonderful optics down the road.
>>
>> In short, I doubt you will be disappointed with the 17-85. Avoid it only
>> if you don't need the great range and wide angle coverage it provides in
>> such a cost-effective and practical manner.
>>
>> Drew
>>
>> --
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>> The Mac Orchard - http://www.macorchard.com/
>> Essential Internet Applications since 1995
>
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 7:41:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>Dumb question. Do you know the overall length of the camera + 17-85 IS
>>lens? I'm trying to figure out if it will fit into a handlebar bag (for my
>>bicycle) with lens attached.

> I've seen this question twice. Might as well get out the ruler
> and measure:
>
> 20D body with 17-88mmIS lens attached
> 6.75" or about 13.5 cm including lens cap
> and uv filter
>
> I use a Lowepro Nova 2 AW which also holds my other
> filters, batteries/charger/cables, and Speedlight 420ex.
> When I get my next lens, I'll retire some things from this bag.
>
> Cheers!
> -bob

Bob: Thanks for the answer! Sounds like it should fit nicely into my
handlebar bag then. Of course, it sure would be nice if there was a lens not
a whole lot longer that got up to, say, 135mm (but an effective range of
28-200+ is asking for a bit much, especially in a tight package).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
!