Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What is wrong with the Canon EF-S 17-85mm lens??

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 11, 2005 10:55:50 PM

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

why would this not make a good walking around lens??
or for many other purposes???

thanks
chas
--
chas
The new Canon DSLR elist. no trolls, etc
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canon-dslr/join

....

More about : wrong canon 85mm lens

September 12, 2005 12:37:31 AM

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

It's really an excellent walkaround lens, I've had mine for 10 months now
and really love it. Prime lenses tend to be a tad sharper, at least my 35mm
f2 and 60mm macro are but the range of the 17-85mm and its bulk compared to
the 24-70 is outstanding. The USM focus is fast and the IS really works when
your inside and can't open up more than F4-5.6.

Larry

<chasm@texas.net> wrote in message
news:ctg9i1lit8ie1euipcpjn10pkr3ueqaf4u@4ax.com...
> why would this not make a good walking around lens??
> or for many other purposes???
>
> thanks
> chas
> --
> chas
> The new Canon DSLR elist. no trolls, etc
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canon-dslr/join
>
> ...
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 4:34:35 AM

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

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:55:50 -0500, chasm@texas.net wrote:

>why would this not make a good walking around lens??
>or for many other purposes???
>
It might but why waste the money if you ever plan to go to FF?


********************************************************

"...bray a fool in a morter with wheat,
yet shall not his folly be beaten out of him;.."

"The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
William Blake
Related resources
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 4:51:23 AM

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

<chasm@texas.net> wrote in message
news:ctg9i1lit8ie1euipcpjn10pkr3ueqaf4u@4ax.com...
> why would this not make a good walking around lens??
> or for many other purposes???
>
> thanks
> chas
> --
> chas
> The new Canon DSLR elist. no trolls, etc
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canon-dslr/join
>
> ...

What's wrong? Nothing. No, it won't work with a full-frame camera, but [listen
carefully nay-sayers] -- so what -- it will help to have a good lens to sell
with your non full-frame body when/if you do decide to move to full-frame. And
until then, what you do get out of it on your non-full frame body won't be
matched by any other >single< lens today. And besides, its' third gen IS is
hard to match on any current lens. [Flame away.]
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 5:01:21 AM

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

John A. Stovall wrote:

>
> It might but why waste the money if you ever plan to go to FF?
>
By the time this old warhorse decides to go to FF, if ever, I will be able to
afford L glass and the 21 megpix camera anyhow. iow, I plan to stick with my
300D as it does just about everything I want to do. and does it very well.
but I am pretty limited I feel with the kit lens, 50 and 100mm macros, etc.
I do like teh idea of this lens and I think that an f/4 70-200 would top off my
needs.

thanks to all
chas
--
K5DAM Houston EL29fu
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:17:06 AM

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

In article <ctg9i1lit8ie1euipcpjn10pkr3ueqaf4u@4ax.com> chasm@texas.net writes:
$why would this not make a good walking around lens??

It would. It's the closest equivalent, for EF-S bodies, of the
28-135 IS, which has been the walkabout lens for many Canon 35mm
SLR users, myself included.

That said, its reputation is that it's similar in optical quality
to the 28-135. I have the 17-40/4L as well, and the 17-40 is
clearly better than the 28-135, which means that the 17-40 is likely
also better than the 17-85. I've seen a few users saying that
they've tried both, and the general opinion is that the 17-40 is
indeed better, optically. Of course, with the 17-40 you give up
a lot of range on the long end and don't get IS. There's no free
lunch, after all, else we'd all be using the 4-1200mm f/1L IS USM,
which is the size and weight of the 18-55 kit lens, costs under
$200 (including the hood), and has close focusing down to 1:1.
--
Stephen M. Dunn <stephen@stevedunn.ca>
>>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<<
------------------------------------------------------------------
Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 12:07:35 PM

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

> There's no free lunch, after all, else we'd all be using the 4-1200mm f/1L IS USM,
>which is the size and weight of the 18-55 kit lens, costs under
>$200 (including the hood), and has close focusing down to 1:1.

Do they have a macro version that will do 5x?
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 12:09:16 PM

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

<chasm@texas.net> wrote in message
news:ctg9i1lit8ie1euipcpjn10pkr3ueqaf4u@4ax.com...
> why would this not make a good walking around lens??
> or for many other purposes???

I have one, and it's a very nice lens. Not as sharp as primes or L zooms,
but still very good. Only for use on sub-frame cameras, though.

>
> thanks
> chas
> --
> chas
> The new Canon DSLR elist. no trolls, etc
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canon-dslr/join
>
> ...
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:13:59 PM

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

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:51:23 +0000, SamSez wrote:

>
> <chasm@texas.net> wrote in message
> news:ctg9i1lit8ie1euipcpjn10pkr3ueqaf4u@4ax.com...
>> why would this not make a good walking around lens??
>> or for many other purposes???
>>
>> thanks
>> chas
>> --
>> chas
>> The new Canon DSLR elist. no trolls, etc
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canon-dslr/join
>>
>> ...
>
> What's wrong? Nothing. No, it won't work with a full-frame camera, but [listen
> carefully nay-sayers] -- so what -- it will help to have a good lens to sell
> with your non full-frame body when/if you do decide to move to full-frame. And
> until then, what you do get out of it on your non-full frame body won't be
> matched by any other >single< lens today. And besides, its' third gen IS is
> hard to match on any current lens. [Flame away.]
It isn't an IS lens.
--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 6:56:53 PM

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

"Stephen M. Dunn" <stephen@stevedunn.ca> wrote in message
news:IMoMCI.1v1@stevedunn.ca...

> we'd all be using the 4-1200mm f/1L IS USM,
> which is the size and weight of the 18-55 kit lens, costs under
> $200 (including the hood), and has close focusing down to 1:1.

I have this lens, it is very good. : )

I have it on my 2 Gigapixel EOS 1D xyz 2

Just gotta buy myself a mainframe now to store the pictures on.
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 7:09:13 PM

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

I have the 17-85 and think it's great.

Firstly I wanted Canon as if I ever do want to sell the lens on for a decent
price it's far easier.

Second I wanted a greater zoom than the kit lens but without any loss of
wide-angle.

It was the only option with those criteria...

IS was a pleasant bonus.

Now for the downsides...

It's heavy, compared to the kit-lens it's a brick but then the build quality
is far higher. I now quite like the weight.

Also, the EF-S format is a minor drawback as it won't fit on a full-frame or
film camera but I don't see it being a problem.

I bought this lens for the here and now. If I ever go full frame I have two
choices,

either keep the 1.6 lens and camera as a backup, or sell it off to fund the
full frame purchase.

I still think the biggest depreciation will remain in the camera bodies for
a long time, the lenses (whether EF or EF-S) will continue to remain fairly
stable even if Canon do drop the 1.6 crop format in five years time or so.





<chasm@texas.net> wrote in message
news:ctg9i1lit8ie1euipcpjn10pkr3ueqaf4u@4ax.com...
> why would this not make a good walking around lens??
> or for many other purposes???
>
> thanks
> chas
> --
> chas
> The new Canon DSLR elist. no trolls, etc
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canon-dslr/join
>
> ...
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 7:14:35 PM

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

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:56:53 +0100, "John Ortt"
<johnortt@noemailsuppliedasdontwantspam.com> wrote:

>
>"Stephen M. Dunn" <stephen@stevedunn.ca> wrote in message
>news:IMoMCI.1v1@stevedunn.ca...
>
>> we'd all be using the 4-1200mm f/1L IS USM,
>> which is the size and weight of the 18-55 kit lens, costs under
>> $200 (including the hood), and has close focusing down to 1:1.
>
>I have this lens, it is very good. : )
>
>I have it on my 2 Gigapixel EOS 1D xyz 2
>
>Just gotta buy myself a mainframe now to store the pictures on.
>
>

I'm just about to list my 4Tb compact flash on e-bay if you are
interested? I'm upgrading....


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'03 Volvo V70
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 8:25:15 PM

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

"Tim Hobbs" <tim@spam.com> wrote in message
news:993bi1pmt20kl5dppdgl3k3o93ghaumfg5@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:56:53 +0100, "John Ortt"
> <johnortt@noemailsuppliedasdontwantspam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Stephen M. Dunn" <stephen@stevedunn.ca> wrote in message
>>news:IMoMCI.1v1@stevedunn.ca...
>>
>>> we'd all be using the 4-1200mm f/1L IS USM,
>>> which is the size and weight of the 18-55 kit lens, costs under
>>> $200 (including the hood), and has close focusing down to 1:1.
>>
>>I have this lens, it is very good. : )
>>
>>I have it on my 2 Gigapixel EOS 1D xyz 2
>>
>>Just gotta buy myself a mainframe now to store the pictures on.
>>
>>
>
> I'm just about to list my 4Tb compact flash on e-bay if you are
> interested? I'm upgrading....

: )

How much, I could do with another ?
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 8:25:16 PM

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

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:25:15 +0100, "John Ortt"
<johnortt@noemailsuppliedasdontwantspam.com> wrote:

>
>"Tim Hobbs" <tim@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:993bi1pmt20kl5dppdgl3k3o93ghaumfg5@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 14:56:53 +0100, "John Ortt"
>> <johnortt@noemailsuppliedasdontwantspam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Stephen M. Dunn" <stephen@stevedunn.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:IMoMCI.1v1@stevedunn.ca...
>>>
>>>> we'd all be using the 4-1200mm f/1L IS USM,
>>>> which is the size and weight of the 18-55 kit lens, costs under
>>>> $200 (including the hood), and has close focusing down to 1:1.
>>>
>>>I have this lens, it is very good. : )
>>>
>>>I have it on my 2 Gigapixel EOS 1D xyz 2
>>>
>>>Just gotta buy myself a mainframe now to store the pictures on.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm just about to list my 4Tb compact flash on e-bay if you are
>> interested? I'm upgrading....
>
>: )
>
> How much, I could do with another ?
>

Forget it, there are 4TB cards now, for less.
The older 4Tb cards are a drug on the market. They were limited to
400X speed, too. The 4TB cards go up to 2000X speeds.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 8:25:51 PM

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

>> What's wrong? Nothing. No, it won't work with a full-frame camera, but [listen
>> carefully nay-sayers] -- so what -- it will help to have a good lens to sell
>> with your non full-frame body when/if you do decide to move to full-frame. And
>> until then, what you do get out of it on your non-full frame body won't be
>> matched by any other >single< lens today. And besides, its' third gen IS is
>> hard to match on any current lens. [Flame away.]
>It isn't an IS lens.

Oh yes it is...

http://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/product_finder/cameras/...


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'03 Volvo V70
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 8:26:34 PM

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

"Neil Ellwood" <carl.elllwood2@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.09.12.14.15.17.409632@btopenworld.com...

>> What's wrong? Nothing. No, it won't work with a full-frame camera, but
>> [listen
>> carefully nay-sayers] -- so what -- it will help to have a good lens to
>> sell
>> with your non full-frame body when/if you do decide to move to
>> full-frame. And
>> until then, what you do get out of it on your non-full frame body won't
>> be
>> matched by any other >single< lens today. And besides, its' third gen IS
>> is
>> hard to match on any current lens. [Flame away.]

> It isn't an IS lens.

I own one and can confirm that it is an IS lens.
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 7:35:12 PM

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

John,
Heck, it was last year that I got a camera and lens spec'd like
that...................but it was a Nikon. :-)
Paul


John Ortt wrote:
> "Stephen M. Dunn" <stephen@stevedunn.ca> wrote in message
> news:IMoMCI.1v1@stevedunn.ca...
>
>
>>we'd all be using the 4-1200mm f/1L IS USM,
>>which is the size and weight of the 18-55 kit lens, costs under
>>$200 (including the hood), and has close focusing down to 1:1.
>
>
> I have this lens, it is very good. : )
>
> I have it on my 2 Gigapixel EOS 1D xyz 2
>
> Just gotta buy myself a mainframe now to store the pictures on.
>
>
>
September 29, 2005 11:06:43 PM

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

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

>The 17-85 IS is a very nice, versatile lens. But, at $600, you're tempted to
>compare it to the 70-200 F4 L that you recently picked up, and that's a
>wicked piece of glass. But, as others have pointed out before, it's much
>easier making a high-quality tele-zoom than it is one that reaches into wide
>angles.

Personally, I prefer the 17-40 f/4 L for just a little bit more. It's a
fair bit sharper with more contrast and resolution. I find the IS is not
a great feature in a shorter lense...but that's just me.

I'd like to see Canon come out with a 17-85 or similar lense without the
IS at a more reasonable price and with decent optics. It should sell
better, especially as a kit lense on the XT and 20D.

>So $600 buys you very different features in different types of lenses. Just
>because a $600 wide-range zoom isn't as sharp as a 70-200 F4 of similar cost
>doesn't mean it's not as worthy of spending the $$$.

Like you say, it's relative and many people are getting the 17-85. But
for the price, I'd rather get some "affordable" L glass.
!