Opinion of the 17 - 85 lens that ships with the 20D pls

[mal from cessnock]

I'm a new member and am seeking an opinion of the 17 - 85 lens that ships with the 20D pls

Cheers

Mal from Cessnock
checkout my pics at
http://malcolm.smugmug.com

(signatured entered manually)

[drifter]

Its better than the 18-55 that canon sticks on most as there bog stock supply lens. But from memory the 17-85 is expensive for what it is . If you have an idea about what your going to shoot just buy the body and get the lenses seperately .Don't compromise on glass .

[Big V]

It is about 880 dollars to buy and it has IS, which can be very helpful in low light conditins. It is a great walk around lens, built very well. If it is comming with the camea you are going to be very pleased with it. I liked it so much after using one on a friends camera, I brought one to replace the 18-55 that came with the 300D. I would buy it again.

[mal from cessnock]

Thanks for your responses "drifter" and "bigv".

I've only heard good about it myself. The image IS/USM are supposed to be great.

Mal from Cessnock
see my pics at
http://malcolm.smugmug.com

(signature added manually)

[moz]

I recall strongly mixed opinions about it - from what I gather it's a cheap lens with IS added, so you're getting the 'cheap consumer lens" image quality that Canon's plastic lenses are famous for, but you're paying IS prices. Chromatic abberation and distortion are the main issues IIRC.

It depends what you want out of the lens, but a slow lens with IS is IMO a fairly specialised thing - would you be better off with a faster lens, or a pair of lenses to get the same zoom range at a lower price? If "only one lens" is a requirement why not save money and buy a large-sensor PoS camera that's half the size.

[mal from cessnock]

Thanks for your help Moz, but what is a PoS camera? Can you suggest one?

Cheers

Mal from Cessnock
check out my pics
http://malcolm.smugmug.com

[petal666]

I think maybe he meant P&S (Point and shoot) or maybe Piece of Sh*t

[Marty]

Hey Mal,
the 17-85 is a good lens to start with, but it is quite pricey for what you get for your $.
It is much better than the 18-55 lens which comes with the standard kit.
I got many stunning images from the 17-85 in the right conditions when using a 20D, but I also got some not so good images. I think some of the issue was with the metering on the 20D.
I moved from the 17-85 to a 17-40L on the Canon 20d and there is a big difference in quality....eg sharpness, colours and contrast.
As stated the 17-85 is good for a general walk around lens, but a little pricey, if you pay a little more you can move up to the L series lenses.
Marty

[mal from cessnock]

Marty what did you pay for the 17-40L?

Now don't scare da $hit out of me now will ya

I used a 17-85 for these images and am happy with them?
https://malcolm.smugmug.com/gallery/1567661/1/75774425
But as you say, there have been a few which have not been well focused. Although I would usually blame user error.

Cheers
Mal from Cessnock
check out my pics http://malcolm.smugmug.com
(signature entered manually, not enough rungs on the ladder yet)

[rmp]

Consider the 10-22 EF-S instead of the 17-40 L as you have a 20D. The 10-22 is an excellent lens and goes significantly wider than the 17-40. It's also cheaper.

[Marty]

Het Mal,
the 17-40L is $1100 in Oz.
As rmp say, the 10-22 is wider and cheaper. The down side is it does not fit a 1 series Canon body if you upgrade.
Try this site for good reviews....
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/
Marty

[moz]

I think maybe he meant P&S (Point and shoot) or maybe Piece of Sh*t

I use the terms interchangably. Sometime homonyms are synonyms.

As for a camera... the 17mm is ~28mm equiv on a 35mm camera, so the Canon S3 IS (38mm at the short end though) or Konica/Minolta DiImage cameras might work (there are 3 28-200 with IS according to dpreview).

[mal from cessnock]

Thanks Marty. I thought it would be around that money.

Gotta think seriously before spending that amount of hard earned. My 20D and other stuff just cost me $5G

Cheers
Mal from Cessnock
check out my pics http://malcolm.smugmug.com
(signature entered manually, not enough rungs on the ladder yet)

[rmp]

Thanks Marty. I thought it would be around that money.

Gotta think seriously before spending that amount of hard earned. My 20D and other stuff just cost me $5G

Cheers
Mal from Cessnock
check out my pics http://malcolm.smugmug.com
(signature entered manually, not enough rungs on the ladder yet)

You can always check here for prices:

http://www.dirtcheapcameras.com.au/

They're not necessarily the absolute cheapest, but they'll be pretty close and I've always had good service.

[Marty]

Hey Mal,
L series lenses are costly but they do hold their value well if you ever decide to sell them.
If you liked the 17-85 when you used it, then that is the best test for you. I looked at your link and was impressed you got those images of the bikes. The 17-40 would not have the reach to get the same shots.
Marty

[mal from cessnock]

Marty
You're right about the 17-40 not being in the focal range for those bike images, but it would be great portrait lens wouldn't it? Glad you liked the pics. (Wollombi to Central Mangrove on Fernances Crossing)

RPM
Thanks for the tip

Cheers
Mal from Cessnock
check out my pics http://malcolm.smugmug.com
(signature entered manually, not enough rungs on the ladder yet)

[Murray1006]

This is a good review site which is worth a look. They do quite a bit of testing on the lenses and report what they find in an easy to read format.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

[mal from cessnock]

Murray

Thanks for the link. I checked it out and will return tonight when I have more time to give it a thorough read.

Thanks to everyone who's helped me with this question about the 17-85 canon lens. I appreciate your help (being a newbie to this forum and all)



Cheers
Mal from Cessnock
check out my pics http://malcolm.smugmug.com
(signature entered manually, not enough rungs on the ladder yet)

[Marty]

Hey mal,
the 17-40L is not a good lens for 'regular' portraits.
I do use it for portraits but I like the wide distorted look it gives, which isn't very flattering for the subject.
The 17-85 takes good portraits at the tele end of the zoom.
If you wanted a lens for portraits look at the 50mm, 85mm or 100mm, they all take great portraits, especially the 85 and 100.
The biggest issue with lenses is to find one that does everything you want, from landscapes, to portraits and close-ups with the zoom. But there isnt a lens which satisfies all needs sadly.
Good luck choosing.
Marty

[mal from cessnock]

Yeah.

I had an OM1 for many years and accrued many lenses; each for it''s own task.

If only one would do the job.

I have a 300 and 17-85 for my 20D and would absolutely love a fast 85 (would that be equivalent to a 50 on a full frame?) and I'd also die for a nice wide angle; something that would give me the equivalent to a 24mm.

Cheers
Mal from Cessnock
check out my pics http://malcolm.smugmug.com
(signature entered manually, not enough rungs on the ladder yet)

[petal666]

... and would absolutely love a fast 85 (would that be equivalent to a 50 on a full frame?)

Other way around. 50 on a 20D is approx equal to 85mm on film.

[mal from cessnock]

Ah! Petal666. I was wondering if I had it the wrong way around

So is the equivalent to a 50mm on a 20D about 35mm?

Cheers
Mal from Cessnock
check out my pics http://malcolm.smugmug.com
(signature entered manually, not enough rungs on the ladder yet)

[Marty]

Hey Mal,
its about 31 or 32mm, to make the equivalent of a 50mm on a 20d.
Just use the 1.6x crop factor to work out the equivalent on a ff body.
Have you decided on your choice of lens yet..?
A good idea is to take your 20d into a local camera store and try the lenses you are considering, keep the imges on your cf card and view them on your pc at home. This shows you the actual results to help in selecting a lens.
Marty

[moz]

is the equivalent to a 50mm on a 20D about 35mm?

Yeah, and Sigma make a pretty nice 30/1.4 that I'm trying not to buy. It's lots cheaper than Canon's similar lenses and not a lot worse for image quality. It's also nice and small.

[mal from cessnock]

Moz, thanks for your help.

Is the Sigma lens plastic?

Can you suggest a fav url where I can read a review?

What price are they asking?

Cheers
Mal from Cessnock
check out my pics http://malcolm.smugmug.com
(signature entered manually, not enough rungs on the ladder yet)

[DaveB]

Hey Mal,
its about 31 or 32mm, to make the equivalent of a 50mm on a 20d.
Just use the 1.6x crop factor to work out the equivalent on a ff body.

Actually, I think the theoretical "standard" lens focal length is set by the diagonal size of the image area (film/chip/whatever). For 135-format ("35mm") film that's 43mm, and the "standard lens is 50mm" theory is just a convenient simplification. Pentax and I think others have had 45mm primes for this reason.

For the 20D that's equivalent to a 27mm lens (for a Nikon DX camera it's 29mm) and the Sigma 30mm/1.4 is a very convenient size. The HSM (similar to Canon's ring-USM with full-time manual focus override) is a nice touch also.
It's a lens I'm considering getting.

[mal from cessnock]

You guys have been great. You sure have accumulated a lot of knowledge about various lenses.

I'm going to track down the sigma "standard" and find out how much this little beauty is. A portrait lens - invaluable tool in my grab-bag.

Cheers
Mal from Cessnock
check out my pics http://malcolm.smugmug.com
(signature entered manually, not enough rungs on the ladder yet)

[Wocka]

Mal,

They are some very nice images. I know that road all too well, having dropped my bike at the dreaded "lemmings corner". But the nice people at NRMA gave me the $$$ for a new one.

I can’t offer any advice about the 17-85 but was thinking of this lens to replace my kit 18-55. But from what is said here it might be better for something else. I’ve also had my eye on the 28-135 IS but I really wanted to stay close to the 18mm mark. What to do?

Moz and Mal, I have the Sigma 30mm 1.4 and like it. See an examples here:

http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?t=14850&highlight=
http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?t=13610&highlight=
http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?t=12575&highlight=

It has a metal mount not a plastic one. Focus is fast (from what I’m used to) and quiet, it doesn’t hunt like my 75-300 IS does occasionally.

After trying a mates new EF 100mm macro, I’m almost considering selling this and buying one of those. I bought the 30mm for indoor low light shots. But might be able to get away with a F2.8 macro instead. for indoor and portrait use, etc.

Cheers

[mal from cessnock]

You're pics are beautiful man.

I especially like the "beach at dawn". Great aspect, looking along the sandstone stairs at the railing.

and another one I like was the cat. Nice and sharp, good f stop.

Must showcase my BMW sometime. BTW the chain shot was great.

Cheers

Mal from Cessnock
checkout my smugmug
http://malcolm.smugmug.com

[moz]

I really wanted to stay close to the 18mm mark. What to do?

The Sigma 18-50/2.8, obviously. I have one, i like it, I think I'm going to keep it even though I now have the Canon 24-70/2.8 because it's so small and light (comparitively speaking... the Canon is a bit of a beast to use one handed).

Moz and Mal, I have the Sigma 30mm 1.4 and like it. See an examples here:

Oh dear. Now you're tempting me to buy that too.

I bought the 85/1.8 to get something fast at the longer end, but that is looking very nice. I'm sort of planning on getting a full frame body, and at that point the 30/1.4 + 85/1.8 give me four focal lengths at reasonable apertures for low light and portraits. But not yet! Maybe next year

[DaveB]

I'm sort of planning on getting a full frame body, and at that point the 30/1.4 + 85/1.8 give me four focal lengths at reasonable apertures for low light and portraits.

Nope: the 30mm/1.4 has the Sigma "DC" moniker - it doesn't project a full 135-frame image circle.

[moz]

Nope: the 30mm/1.4 has the Sigma "DC" moniker

Oh Pleh! So I really will have to sheel out for the Canon one. Not having looked too closely I was kinda hoping...

[mal from cessnock]

You're gunna have to explain this dc monika thing

Cheers

Mal from Cessnock
checkout my smugmug
http://malcolm.smugmug.com

[Glen]

Mal, DC is digital camera, meaning the image circle matches the smaller image size of most DSLR. A DC lens would not work on a 35mm film camera or full frame camera such as the 5D.

From the Sigma website:

These are special lenses designed so that the image circle matches the smaller size of the image sensor of most digital SLR cameras. Their specialized design gives these lenses the ideal properties for digital cameras, the compact and lightweight construction is an added bonus ! including compact and lightweight construction

[gstark]

Mal,

With the advent of digital cameras and sensors that are smaller than full frame(FF) - typically 35mm but also the high end Canon digitals, the camera manufacturers, and subsequently the third party lens manufacturers, have developed lens that taks advantage of the smaller sensor size of these cameras.

These lenses are cheaper to manufacture, and they're smaller and lighter than the equivalent full size lenses, but the smaller sensor size equates to a smaller image circle projected by the lens, and thus these lenses are not suitable for the FF cameras.

Typically, these lenses will have a nomenclature that includes a reference to the fact that they're intended for use on cameras with a smaller sensor, and that's what the I think the DC means on the Sigma. On Nikons the designation is DX, and Canon also have a similar naming scheme.

With the Canon lenses you need to be careful, as these lenses are not designed to be used on the FF cameras, and they might foul the mechanism within the mirror box or perhaps damage the camera.

[mal from cessnock]

Thanks for the explanation. It certainly gets complicated.

So with my 20D, I'm sort of between a rock and a hard place when adding to my lens portfolia (so to speak). Like when I buy a new camera body if it's a ff, they won't fit, eh!



Cheers

Mal from Cessnock
checkout my smugmug
http://malcolm.smugmug.com

[DaveB]

Typically, these lenses will have a nomenclature that includes a reference to the fact that they're intended for use on cameras with a smaller sensor, and that's what the I think the DC means on the Sigma. On Nikons the designation is DX, and Canon also have a similar naming scheme.

With the Canon lenses you need to be careful, as these lenses are not designed to be used on the FF cameras, and they might foul the mechanism within the mirror box or perhaps damage the camera.

In fact the Canon EF-S lenses (as distinct from the normal EF lenses) are designed to physically refuse to fit FF cameras to avoid such problems.

[mal from cessnock]

That's a good idea. At least there's no possible unintended damage.

cheers

mal from cessnock
checkout my smugmug
http://malcolm.smugmug.com

[Glen]

At least there's no possible unintended damage.

In contrast to intended damage

[gstark]

Thanks for the explanation. It certainly gets complicated.

So with my 20D, I'm sort of between a rock and a hard place when adding to my lens portfolia (so to speak). Like when I buy a new camera body if it's a ff, they won't fit, eh!

Mal,

Only if you buy EF-S lenses.

Buy normal lenses - which are the higher quality ones - and they'll fit both styles of body.

Dave,

Thanx for the clarification.

[jdear]

the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS many people say is of canon L quality standard (althought $2k RRP), equiv approx 28-90mm in 35mm format.

Im finding my 24-70 sigma not wide enough at times (approx 38 - 112), Id be considering this lense as a replacement if I dont get a second FF body.

J

[Amfibius]

This topic comes up over and over again

In 2004 (when the 17-85IS was still a new lens) I borrowed one from a friend and did some test shoots and compared it against my 17-40L. I then stripped them of EXIF info and posted 100% crops on FM and OCAU. I invited people to vote on which was the L lens.

Result:

Link to thread on OCAU (you have to be a registered member. The images are still up on that thread). OCAU members identified the L lens correctly by a ratio of 2.4 to 1.

Link to thread on FM (unfortunately images are down). FM members identified the L lens correctly by a ratio of 2.1 to 1.

My conclusion:

The reason why I posted this test was to see how tangible the extra quality of the "L" is. When I saw the results myself I thought that the L was better but the 17-85IS is really damned close at 17mm. Then I started to wonder whether my opinion was influenced by my knowledge of which one the L-lens was. So I thought that I would post a poll to see how many other people could pick the difference.

This was not a test for the emperor's new clothes. If you saw no difference, then you saw no difference. If you thought the 17-85IS was better, then that's your opinion and I respect that. In some ways it is better.

In my own opinion, the A-series of images demonstrate better contrast at all apertures and marginally better detail at F/4 which starts to equalize at F/5.6.

I did this review with the intent of removing as much bias as possible. Everyone who voted was blinded to the origin of the image. So the voting was made based on what people actually saw and not based on preconcieved notions of what an image from an "L" lens would look like.

This poll was also posted in another forum which I visit. There is not much crossover between that forum and this one, and the results are the same. They identified the "L" by a ratio of 2.4 to 1. I announced the answer in that forum at the same time I announced the answer here.

Conclusion at 17mm the 17-85IS is very close in quality to the 17-40L. The difference is discernable in a direct comparison with poll respondents correctly identifying the L lens in a 2 to 1 ratio. Given that the 17-85IS is cheaper, lighter, offers a larger focal range, and has IS, I would have to declare it the winner in this shootout. I do believe the L to have superior image quality but the 17-85IS comes so close that you would not lose much by choosing it.

In short, I would be more than happy to recommend the 17-85IS.

[Amfibius]

Only if you buy EF-S lenses.

Buy normal lenses - which are the higher quality ones - and they'll fit both styles of body.

The little bit which I highlighted is not true for the EFS 10-22.

The EFS 10-22 easily whips the pants off the 16-35L. The "cheap" 10-22 has commendably low distortion and astonishing sharpness. In fact the 10-22 is an L lens in everything but name. Build quality is L-standard, and it has a UD element. In fact the only other lens in Canon's lineup with a UD element (but no L designation) is the 65mm MP-E macro.

The other EF-S lenses are roughly comparable to their full frame counterparts:

EFS 17-85IS - EF 28-135IS. Roughly comparable.

EFS 60/2.8 macro - EF 100/2.8 macro. I never saw the point of this lens. I mean, why bother when you can buy the 50/2.5 macro (full frame)? Sure, the EFS 60/2.8 gives you 1:1 magnification, but you can get the life-size converter and get 1:1.

EFS 17-55/2.8 IS - EF 24-70/2.8L. The EF-S is optically comparable AND it has IS. But it's not cheap ... about the same price as the 24-105L IS.

I don't think that the EFS lens loses out all the time.