I've read comments at Fred Miranda's that this lens has barrel distortion, CA. All of those happening at range 17-35. From 55-85, it's good.

FYI, I'm an avid fan of the EF-S 18-55mm as it's my all around lens(for now). I like it at wide but I feel short on the long end. Never the less, super sulit sya para sa'kin.

Now that I've outgrown the kit lens, I'm playing with the idea of getting 17-85, since it's 1 notch wider, an IS and a bit longer reach as my next all rounder. I've considered EF 28-135 IS and 24-105mm f/4 L IS too, but since I'm used to 18mm, I think I'll feel short on the wide. I'm lookin' at EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS as well, but it seems like I'll be going back with the kit lens only with a big aperture and an IS to booth. For me, it's too pricy for a non-L.

I've tried 17-40L, sweet lens for me but short. I've tried 24-70L also, much much sweeter, especially in low light situations but then again short on wide.

It's not that I'm asking for the equivalent of Nikon 18-200, which Canon will not consider to build one(IMO), but I'd like to know more from the local point of view.

Is there anyone using this lens? What's your take? Are all the comments in Fred Miranda true? Or is it just a matter of having good or bad copy of the lens just like the third party lenses?

Thanks in advance and more power.

TiNiO

i heard the tamron 18-200 is a nice buy for the price not 18-200vr but it approximates it. youll need a tripod though i bet. pasmado ako eh so parang may earthquake pag nasa 200mm ako

Tony, don't let the non-L status of the 17-55 fool you. I understand the reason it can't get an "L" is because it's for an EF-S mount. Reviews I've been reading consistently rate it very well, comparative if not better than all the other L lens. It is definitely far superior to the kit lens.

After buying this lens a few days after I bought my 350D camera last year, my kit lens has been in the closet ever since. I really like its capabilities from wide to telephoto and the IS really helped especially in low light situations. Build quality is good as well as its fast focusing due to USM. Its my all around lens for about 6 months until I got a 10-22. Now, I use it sparingly.

Barrel distortion? Well, frankly, not that too concerned about it unless you really shoot architecture.

Gripes? Well, a wider aperture would always be good (in some instances, the 50 1.8 takes over). While this is already okay as a walkaround lens, my needs eventually required a more wider focal length (thus the 10-22 for tight spaces and architectural shots like old churches for an ongoing project) and the telephoto side was wanting (thus my justification of getting a 70 - 200 f4, again for those church details in facade).

By the way, I also experienced err99 for this lens and when I serviced this at Canon, they needed to replace the aperture assembly. Good thing that it was still within warranty and spared me the expense of around P2.5K. Another photographer also experienced this problem.

Pero bottom line, I am quite satisfied with its output and has been my constant companion in my travels.

Hi Alvin,

Actually, I agree with what all the reviews for the 17-55 IS for it's non-L designation.

What I'm trying to say about going back to the kit lens all over again is the range.

17-55 is very much the same as 18-55 (only one notch wider). As I've mentioned, I feel short already on 55mm, so I'd like to extend a bit more.

@Christopher, thanks for the curt reply.

Cheers!

TiNiO

Tony, don't let the non-L status of the 17-55 fool you. I understand the reason it can't get an "L" is because it's for an EF-S mount. Reviews I've been reading consistently rate it very well, comparative if not better than all the other L lens. It is definitely far superior to the kit lens.

sir tony, please review the piece if you decide to get it, i was also wondering about the 17-85mm canon thanks

sure. i've been asking friends if they could lend me this lens to test drive. there's one already replied. i'll give my feedbacks once i get my hands on this.

cheers!

TiNiO ;)

sir tony, please review the piece if you decide to get it, i was also wondering about the 17-85mm canon thanks

Hi Mr. Tony/Everyone,

I have a 17-85mm IS also and it works fine.

17-85mm IS, for me, is better than 17-55mm 2.8 IS. It has a longer focal length (you mentioned you want to extend a bit more) - and I guess you won't be needing the IS anymore in the 17-55 when you're already set to 2.8.
Just expressing...

Hi Alvin,

Actually, I agree with what all the reviews for the 17-55 IS for it's non-L designation.

What I'm trying to say about going back to the kit lens all over again is the range.

17-55 is very much the same as 18-55 (only one notch wider). As I've mentioned, I feel short already on 55mm, so I'd like to extend a bit more.

@Christopher, thanks for the curt reply.

Cheers!

TiNiO

well its really up to one to decide ... i now have the 17-55 and comparing it with the 18-55. image quality is far apart. and consider that you can take pictures at wider apertures will really help a lot on those low light situations you cant with your 18-55 or the 17-85. and because it is sharper compared to the kit lens you could still crop photos and still get reasonable sharp ones. ... my take is if you want more reach go for for the longer zoom like the 70-300 and keep first your kit lens for the wider shots.

The 17-85 was my most used lens from the time I purchased it (August 2005) to a couple of days ago. The focal length is just right, and the IS really helped me with a lot of my shots! Btw I also read the reviews at Fred Miranda before taking the plunge and picking my 17-85. Never regretted getting it :)

Why did I stop using it a couple of days ago? Well, I decided to focus more on portraiture, so I decided to get myself a 17-55 2.8. I miss the extra 30mm reach more than I thought I would, but I'll get the hang of the lens. :)

OT: If anyone's interested, I'm currently selling my 17-85... just send me a PM or an email for details :)

i bought a 17-85 IS, 2nd hand, and it lasted me for just 3 weeks before i sold it. it has great range but it seem to have lacked something. like an OOMPH! or was it just the f/4?

i bought a 17-55 f/2.8 IS as replacement and i have to say, i vouch for it. :)

The 17-85 was my most used lens from the time I purchased it (August 2005) to a couple of days ago. The focal length is just right, and the IS really helped me with a lot of my shots! Btw I also read the reviews at Fred Miranda before taking the plunge and picking my 17-85. Never regretted getting it :)

Why did I stop using it a couple of days ago? Well, I decided to focus more on portraiture, so I decided to get myself a 17-55 2.8. I miss the extra 30mm reach more than I thought I would, but I'll get the hang of the lens. :)

OT: If anyone's interested, I'm currently selling my 17-85... just send me a PM or an email for details :)


do you do your portraiture on the streets where you might have low light? coz, if it were inside a studio i dont see the advantage of the 17-55, not unless you want narrow depth of field narrower than the 17-85?

17-85, as for any lens with a wide angle and good zoom combined, does have barrel distortions, it's the trade-off. You get barrel distortions with most wide angle lenses including the 10-22. Same with the 18-200 which also has a bad case of CA. I love my 17-85, it's almost a permanent fixture on my 40D. Mount it in reverse and you get awesome macro shots.

I used a 24-85 before, but I needed more on the wide end, so I bought this. Perfect.
Pics are very sharp, fast auto focus, and good colors. It's my walk around lens, and for some, the only lens they'll ever need.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3386/4635176334_aaf1cf5637_b.jpg (http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/%3Ca%20href=)">

17-85, as for any lens with a wide angle and good zoom combined, does have barrel distortions, it's the trade-off. You get barrel distortions with most wide angle lenses including the 10-22. Same with the 18-200 which also has a bad case of CA. I love my 17-85, it's almost a permanent fixture on my 40D. Mount it in reverse and you get awesome macro shots. BUT, do you have other similar lens to compare it with and make your 17-85 permanent to your 40D?

*i have nothing against your comments on 17-85*

Yes I do have the 10-22 (in the process of disposing it), I still keep the 24-85 for portraits, (it's a little bit soft on the focus but you don't want your skin imperfections showing). I also have the 55-250, the ever reliable kit 18-55 and a prime F1.8 50mm. I'm planning on getting the 70-300. I tried the 18-200 to be my walk around, but it exhibited problems with image quality and pronounced chromatic aberration.

i also have the 17-85 and its one of my favorite lenses. . .gives me the wide to zoom that i need. . .IS is a big plus coupled with the USM for fast focusing, ofcourse its got trade offs like vignetting and barrel distortion but nothing that cant be fixec on PP as long as i get the shot that i need. its just a matter of knowing of when and how to use the lens in a given condition, if you'll be shooting in low light situations then ofcourse you'll have a hard time hunting your subject but then again, its a "walk'around" lens and not a "shot in low-light" lens. . . hehehe

I have the canon efs 17-85 i bought it a week ago from a TPC member. It was perfect until i encountered some problems with it. Im getting an "err 1. The camera and lens connection is faulty. clean the lens contacts." Im going to try to clean it with isoprophyl alchohol and if it does not help im taking it to the service center. give you guys an update.

Cleaned the 17-85 and still same problem. I brought it to the service center in shaw they said its the power diaphragm that has the problem. It will be replaced but the waiting line is 3-4weeks.

Cleaned the 17-85 and still same problem. I brought it to the service center in shaw they said its the power diaphragm that has the problem. It will be replaced but the waiting line is 3-4weeks.

aww that's too long waiting.

Same as my brother in Canon Cebu. Finally got finished after about 2months. Long wait. They said they have to wait for the spare part to arrive.

Yes I do have the 10-22 (in the process of disposing it), I still keep the 24-85 for portraits, (it's a little bit soft on the focus but you don't want your skin imperfections showing). I also have the 55-250, the ever reliable kit 18-55 and a prime F1.8 50mm. I'm planning on getting the 70-300. I tried the 18-200 to be my walk around, but it exhibited problems with image quality and pronounced chromatic aberration.

Oh, just got my Canon 10-22, and I like it very much. Gives me a different perspective.

Anyone here happen to know how much will it cost for the 17-85 cleaned internally? im now seeing dust gathering. TIA

i remember reading from another thread that it will only cost you around 500php on any canon repair shop. try searching for it. best of luck

i remember reading from another thread that it will only cost you around 500php on any canon repair shop. try searching for it. best of luck

thanks sir, ill look into it when i get back to PH.

i remember reading from another thread that it will only cost you around 500php on any canon repair shop. try searching for it. best of luck

Update:

I called up canon cebu, price for 17-85 cleaning is 1,250, fortunately i managed to open the lens myself, blew the dust off and saved a couple of bucks.

a bit pricey eh. i think since the service center is not in the manila area. hopefully you had your lens screwed in tightly coz you might get more dust in the future if haven't