According provided by Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 17-85mm 1: 4-5.6 IS USM lens is huge thanks to the store www.fotika.com.uawhere you can find a huge number of different used photographic equipment, including similar lenses for Canon cameras.
- Browse Navigation
- In short
- Main Specifications
- Image quality and sample photos
- My personal experience with the lens
- Prices / where to buy
- User Comments
- Add your review or question on the lens
In this review, the Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 17-85mm 1: 4-5.6 IS USM lens (according to the inscriptions on its body) I will call in abbreviation - Canon 17-85 / 4-5.6 IS USM.
The Canon 17-85 / 4-5.6 IS USM is an old all-round lens for Canon EOS cropped EF-S cameras. In general, it is better than the line of 18-55 / 3.5 (4) -5.6 class lenses. There are imperfections in image quality, especially at 17mm. All in all it is a balanced lens for everyday amateur photography. Nowadays, it is very easy to find it at a low cost in the secondary market.
Unlike many similar lenses, the Canon 17-85 / 4-5.6 IS USM attracts with its wide-angle shooting at 17 mm focal length, instead of the classic 18 mm, which are used in the vast majority of amateur universal lenses. Also, Canon 17-85 / 4-5.6 IS USM has a good build, fast focusing, constant manual focus control mode and image stabilizer.
Canon 17-85 / 4-5.6 IS USM was introduced in September 2004. Subsequently, it often went as a standard lens for amateur Canon EOS cameras with an EF-S mount, was first seen as a kit lens along with a Canon EOS camera 20D (introduced August 19, 2004) and Canon EOS 350D Digital (aka Canon Digital Rebel XT, aka Canon Kiss Digital n, introduced February 17, 2005). In October 2009 Canon 17-85 / 4-5.6 IS USM was supplemented / replaced with a similar lens - Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 15-85 mm 1: 3.5-5.6 IS USM.
At that time, only a few modifications of the Canon EF-S 18-55 / 3.5-5.6 existed from such universal lenses; against their background the Canon 17-85 / 4-5.6 IS USM was pleasantly distinguished by its extended focal length range, better assembly and image stabilizer . Over the years, countless copies of the Canon 17-85 / 4-5.6 IS USM have been released.
An accurate and complete list of all original Canon EF-S lenses can see here.
Main Specifications of Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 17-85mm 1: 4-5.6 IS USM:
|Review Instance Name||Near the front lens' Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 17-85mm 1: 4-5.6 IS USM Canon INC. ø67mm ', mount side' Canon INC. Made In TAIWAN '|
|Front Filter Diameter||67 mm, plastic thread for filters|
|Focal length||17-85mm, EGF for Canon cameras with APS-C sensor is 27.2-136 mm
|Zoom ratio||5 x|
|Designed by||for SLR cameras Canon EOS with bayonet mount Ef-s|
|Number of aperture blades||6 rounded petals|
|Tags||bayonet mount and hood mounts, a window with a focus distance scale, marks for focal lengths|
|MDF||0.35m, maximum magnification ratio 1: 5. The scale of the focusing distances has the inscription 'Macro', indicating the possibility of amateur macro photography.|
|The weight||475 g|
|Optical design||17 elements in 12 groups. The lens uses 1 aspherical element (double-sided molded glass aspherics are used)|
|Lens hood||Lens hood EW-73|
|Manufacturer country||Made In Taiwan|
|Period||Since September 2004, in 2009 it was supplemented by a similar model Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 15-85 mm 1: 3.5-5.6 IS USM|
|3D view||View ->|
The lens is a bit confused by the maximum relative aperture of 17 mm focal length, which is 1: 4 instead of the classic and generally accepted 1: 3.5. The difference is about a third of the step (1/3 of the T-stop for aperture). Of these lenses, only the new Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 18-55mm 1: 4-5.6 IS STM sank just as low.
Canon 17-85 / 4-5.6 IS USM assembled well. Of the advantages of the assembly, I immediately want to note a metal bayonet mount.
The zoom ring (zoom) is rubberized, wide and pleasant to use. When changing the focal length, the front lens does not rotate. The retractable frame of the body (trunk) consists of two plastic sections. The focus ring is not rubberized, but quite pleasant to use.
There is a bayonet mount mark and a mark on the case for quick installation of the hood. The lens uses a plastic hood EW-73, which is fixed in special grooves located near the front lens of the lens. The hood can be installed in the opposite direction for transportation. In this position, access to the zoom ring is a little difficult. When you change the focal length, the lens hood moves with the front of the lens.
When changing the focal length, the rear lens moves in the middle of the lens body like a pump - it draws in and pushes out air. This behavior of the rear lens is called 'vacuum cleaner effect', which can increase the amount of dust that accumulates in the camera.
Unfortunately, over time, the lens begins to spontaneously change the focal length (spontaneous crawl of the trunk).
Unfortunately, diaphragm consists of only 6 rounded petals.
Canon 17-85 / 4-5.6 IS USM has Canon's built-in image stabilizer IS (Istomach Stabilizer). There is a switch on the case that is responsible for turning it on and off. According to the instructions, the stabilization system can compensate 3 stops by shutter speed. In numerical terms, this means that you can shoot at shutter speeds 8 times longer than what a lens without a stabilizer requires. This is close to the truth. I was able to take pictures with my hands without grease on shutter speed 1/10 second and 85 mm of focal length.
During shooting from a tripod, as well as during shooting in BULB mode, the stabilizer should be turned off.
Canon 17-85 / 4-5.6 IS USM uses ultrasonic focusing motor Canon USM (Ultrasonic). The lens uses a large and powerful ultrasonic focusing motor ring type. The difference between the ring ultrasonic and the reduced ultrasonic motor is shown and described. here.
Focus is fast. On a Canon Camera 450D I had no particular complaints about the accuracy of focusing.
Noise from the focus motor is almost inaudible, but still a small level of noise is present and will affect the sound quality when shooting video using the microphone built into the camera.
During focusing, the front and rear lenses remain stationary, as the lens uses internal focus. The front lens also does not rotate during zooming. It is possible to use any filters without problems.
The minimum focusing distance is only 35 cm, while you can shoot Macro with 1: 5 magnification... By and large, the inscription 'Macro 0.35m / 1.2ft 'on the lens just talks about MDF, not about the true macro opportunity.
The lens has a window with a distance scale with marks in meters and feet. The scale is small, on it there are labels only for 0.6, 1, 1.5, 3, 10 m and the label is 'infinity'. Such a scale in itself is of little use and is present more for show (justification of this thought here).
In manual focus mode, the ring rotates 120 degrees, when it reaches the extreme positions it does not rest, but continues to slide, without affecting the focus.
There is only one switch on the lens body that is responsible for the focus mode - 'AF / MF' (auto / manual focus). Auto AF is supported by Canon continuous manual focus control FTM (Full Time Manual Focusing), which implies that you can rotate the focus ring at any time. But, in fact, according to the instructions manual focus is available after focusing on the subject in single-frame autofocus (ONE SHOT AF). Canon FTM details well described here.
- There is a small effect of 'Focus Breathing' (changing the viewing angle during focusing).
- The Canon 17-85 / 4-5.6 IS USM does not have much focus problems in Live View (tested on Canon 450D).
- When changing the focal length, focusing is a bit confused.
- The lens does not have a hard stop (hard infinity mechanical stop) which allows you to accurately and quickly focus the lens to infinity under any external temperature conditions.
- At 85 mm of the focal length, while focusing on the MDF, the distance from the front lens of the lens to the subject is about 20 cm.
- There is no depth of field scale and labels for working in the infrared spectrum.
- Focus shift (shift-focus) was not noticed during operation and testing.
Image quality and sample photos
The image quality is not particularly pleasing. In general, this is mediocre lensnevertheless, it is impossible to demand quality from it, as with L-series lenses.
The main disadvantage of the lens is the strong chromatic aberration at the edges and corners of the image by 17 mm of focal length, as well as a strong subsidence of sharpness by 17 mm, strong venetation and distortion. The 17 mm focal length of the Canon 17-85 / 4-5.6 IS USM turned out to be a very weak link.
In the center of the frame, the lens is sharp across the entire range, even at open apertures.
Neutral color reproduction, simple (boring) bokeh, slight chromatism in the range of 35-85 and large chromatism in the range of 17-35.
All pictures in the gallery were taken using Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi, images shown without processing, normal camera format JPEG. Everything was removed from the hands.
You can download the original photos in the '.JPEG' format at this link.
Canon 17-85 / 4-5.6 IS USM is a balanced lens. But due to poor image quality at 17mm focal length and general antiquity of the lens (one of the first lenses for Canon EF-S), I recommend looking to the side instead of Canon 17-85 / 4-5.6 IS USM Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 18-135 mm 1: 3.5-5.6 IS.
I do not recommend changing the class lens 18-55 / 3.5-5.6 with stabilizer to Canon 17-85 / 4-5.6 IS USM. It will be difficult to achieve special gains in image quality and usability.
As a result, the Canon 17-85 / 4-5.6 IS USM can be a good replacement only for class 18-55 / 3.5-5.6 lenses without an image stabilizer (old line), as well as as the first lensthat is bought together or separately from the camera.
Prices for the Canon 17-85 / 4-5.6 IS USM lens in popular online stores can look at this linkor in the price block located below:
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.com.
Canon 17-85 / 4-5.6 IS USM left a mixed impression. It is more convenient to use than the kit lenses of the 18-55 / 3.5-5.6 line, but the poor image quality at 17 mm repels from this lens.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram.
there are many reviews on the Internet, where it is written that with a 17mm focal cable, the cable bends "to a kink" and quickly fails
Another reason to go past this lens. But I met the Old, that in the new (later) parties, the interior and the loop were sorted out and replaced.
Nothing of the kind - these loops constantly break on new ones. Or some other nonsense with the focus motor. IMI, without AF, all Avito is overwhelmed.
For the time being
He’s been working with a friend since 10, he has already replaced the carcass and the lens is all in order. He said that even once he wet it through and through, when stupidly water flowed from it. Dried and works again. So xs maybe it breaks at the handshops)
The other day, such a lens died in 2012 onwards. just because of the loop.
He worked for a friend of this kind for about 8 years and at least he shot a lot. As a result, I sold it and then the fate is unknown)
I can talk about the ef-s 18-55mm 1: 3.5-5.6 IS model.
Three months ago I bought a canon 400d with this lens. Mileage of about 80, autofocus was already dying, but I did not notice this. Mileage on this model you will not look at once. According to the seller, he shot about 000 thousand :-)
Well, okay - I ordered a train on aliexpress - it costs about 60 rubles. The maximum bend there is 35mm. That is, when the trunk is completely hidden.
In the photo I indicated where the train burst.
Yes, I had the same problem with this lens, also in the year 2017))) Fortunately, on YouTube there are good video instructions for disassembling the piece, and the Chinese have trains for a dollar apiece.
So it is, my specimen's train is frayed. On aliexpress, the cable costs 400 rubles, but it's too lazy to repair the lens - it's not worth it. There is a video instruction on YouTube, quite understandable and intuitive, if you wish, you can easily repair and even correct a constructive defect with rubbing the loop
With all the attractiveness of the price / quality IS USM, it has technical flaws, alas. During use, this is approximately seven years, two are noticed: the first - with intensive use of the zoom, the aperture of the diaphragm breaks, and any value set except for Φ4 throws the camera into error. A new cable costs about $ 8 and, in the presence of straight arms, changes in a half to two hours. A service center can request $ 50 and a month of waiting. Second, the roller guide screws in the rifled zoom shaft can relax. One of three is enough for the zoom to stumble and jam. It is treated in half an hour, a complete disassembly of the lens is not required. The main thing is not to start the problem, so that the relaxed screw and its roller do not go for a walk on the inside. This is regarding the technical side.
Regarding the lens itself, you should choose a range of apertures and FR, for which the distortion will be minimal, and that's all. Excellent sharpness of the picture and detail can not be compared with whale soap. He is a whale. Well, the well-known problem of all inexpensive lenses is chromatic aberration. Not critical, lightroom almost nullifies them on the machine.
The whale seemed to me much better in terms of optics than this unfortunate 17-85. Especially at the wide end.
18-55 IS, especially IS II and newer, seem sharper. But the modern 18-55 is simply inferior both to the design and the image quality.
Even an STM?
STM seems to be praised. I meant that from 18-55 it is clearly inferior to the one that the first version, without USM and stub.
I absolutely agree with you, the whale 18-55mm IS is much better in the picture than the one standing 2 times larger than 17-85mm. He was at mea, bought with a 40D camera, but as soon as I got a whale-18-55mm IS, I immediately got rid of it. and then this whale was changed to 18-55mm IS STM, which in my opinion is not even inferior to 15-85mm, and although I switched to fixes, I’m not going to add some IS-STM from 18-55mm. My opinion is the quality / price it is not inferior to expensive lenses. And here are my fixes
What replaced the wide angle? I don't see 18mm. Yes, and with fixes, juggling and carrying their idea with you is not always convenient far. In general, comparing fixes and universal zooms is like comparing X with a finger. SUV and sports coupe.
On the crop sigma 17-70 is much nicer. For me, at Canon everything is bad with inexpensive optics and especially with zooms 17-55, 17-85. Nikon optics, and sigma, tamron and others like them are often more pleasant in terms of picture quality, bokeh and convenience. Even 24-105 1: 4 L is not a fountain for me in the artistic plan of them. Although many L series fixes like it, it just happens to be expensive :)
* 18-55. I did not find how to fix it.
Sigma is probably better, especially fast. I had a Tamron 16-50 / 2.8 (near Nikon) - so the wide angle was generally pleasing. Although he is being harassed for his "expressionless" picture, I really liked it.
PS, Offtop: Fujah has a better 16-50, it’s still better :) it’s dark, but sharp and generally pleasant. And it costs mere pennies for its level.
Only not 16-50, but 17-50 (if Tamron). 16-50 / 2.8 is most likely Tokina.
24-105 / 4 gives a more or less decent picture on the full frame, on the crop they only need to shoot video, IMHO.
So Sigma is much more expensive!
Agree Brother, different cost levels
Nikon has the same 18-55 and especially 18-105 in general slag. And my 18-55 is2 actively worked for 10 years and was sold successfully, and it was much better than the 18-55 Nikon.
That rare case when the lens is really not very good. According to the picture, it is not better than modern whale plugs of the 18-55 class, while it is larger, heavier, more expensive. Also, the constructiveness and reliability let us down. At one time I used 24-85usm at 20D - a much more pleasant lens in terms of the picture. Now even 18-55stm or 18-135stm will be preferable.
Yes, Arkady wrote everything correctly :)
Moreover, this miserable likeness of a lens is also much worse than even the first 18-55 kit: the CA level is incredibly huge, they are not controlled by aperture ....
The lens is weak, thanks for the review :)
If your hands are not from your shoulders, nefig blame the glass
But this does not mean that all the glasses are equally good, nonetheless!
This statement most likely applies to bottles and their contents.
The wide angle is of little use, the long end is simply boring, for it is dark. Indeed, on the long one, the old ones 24-85 or 28-105 will be much more interesting, since they are lighter. And on a wide angle, a whale from the second generation and newer will be better.
I recall how the aperture of the diaphragm broke off !!!!!!!!
A thousand gray hair and I soldered it and sold this misunderstanding to nafik.
And also the eternal dust inside!
And USM rowing !!!!!!!!
Here is finally a review of this special lens for me. 17-85is from canon was a discovery for me. At the time of its purchase, a lot of glasses from this manufacturer had already visited me and some remained to live. But the 17-85is is to some extent an iconic lens. When I read the specs, I was impressed. Pleasant range of focal points, stub, usm and other chips were very pleasing. But when I finally bought it ... In my opinion, this is the worst Canon lens I have ever used. I cannot consider the 18-55 versions of the first and second versions to be the worst - they are the same old, but also not claiming the laurels of more or less advanced glass. Then the 18-55 was in many ways really a plug for the bayonet or just a cheap lousy width, and the 17-85is seemed to have given a decent image. And even if you do not remember the pictures with modern multi-pixel crops - even at 400d this lens performed poorly. Despite the fact that judging by the body and the absence of dust - it was little used, it was still creaky and with a falling trunk. Open aperture sharpness is mediocre at any focal length. HA overpowers the lens at times just monstrous. When the aperture is closed, the sharpness does not improve much, even at f8 nothing worthy can be achieved if you need something more than a post on the net or a print 10 by 15. Comparing even with the first stabilized 18-55, this lens loses in most of the main parameters. The newer 18-55is stm, 18-135 is and is stm - all of them are noticeably ahead of the 17-85is in terms of both assembly and image quality. In addition, a huge number of broken lenses at the flea market indicate poor vitality of the glass. I must say that all this does not apply to any old lens. The same 28-135is (albeit on ff), but released in 1998 is still very good for me, but not 17-85is 2004. In general, in my chart 17-85is is still the worst lens from Canon. With all this, I can say that he is still not so terrible and they can and should be removed, if nothing else is there and is not foreseen. Sharpe has not been canceled, the HA can be removed in the lightroom, as it should be confused with processing, you can correct the geometry and in general many lens jambs. It cannot achieve the quality of newer glasses or electrics, but in general it can be removed.
\\ In my opinion, this is the worst Canon lens I have ever used. \\ Apparently you haven't used Canon 18-200mm IS, here is really the worst lens from Canon - expensive and with a lot of flaws)))
Used a little. He can be forgiven a lot for a really large range of focal lengths, and he doesn’t break so often. In addition, superzoom almost always does not shine with quality, and 17-85 seems to be not a superzoom, but simply a sweeping standard zoom. In general, 18-200is is sharper for me (in any case, comparing the copies that I had). Well, the price of 18-200 is really too big for its quality. Like the price 17-85 or 10-22.
Did you like the sharpness of the 18-200 lens at long focal length? Up to 80-90mm from it is even more or less sharp, but at 100 and above it is absolutely bad, and if it can still come off in the center, then there is soap around the edges of the frame !! So, I don't see the point in a large focal length for him, it's better 18-135)))) In general, if there is a possibility, then there is no better fixed lenses !! Therefore, for a long time I switched to fixes and only the only zoom that I use is 55-250mm
Of course, soap in the corners is quite normal for cheap superzoom. Even 28-300 foxes at Canon lathers the corners despite its high price. But 17-85 is not a superzoom, and the quality is worse than 18-200 on comparable focal lengths (in any case, my specimens behaved this way). And I agree, 18-135 even which is not stm or usm is better than both 17-85is and 18-200is. Fixes are better in quality, but worse in convenience. When I know exactly what focal lengths are needed - I take fixes, when I don't know - zooms. Well, filming a reportage with fixes is aerobatics, I still don't have access to that :)
I have a 40mm lens on my canon, and there is always another pancake in my pocket - 24mm, these 2 lenses are the most used by me and practically suck for everything. If I'm going to do portraits, then 85mm 1,8 and 60mm 2,8 The price / quality ratio is the best choice. 24mm + 40mm are slightly more expensive than 17-85mm, but much better than the last picture! This photo was taken in a car with a 40mm 2,8 lens on a Canon 40D
Of course they surpass 17-85is. But what to do when there is a report and it is necessary to remove a group of people and an individual person in a couple of seconds? Here even two carcasses with fixes will not always help and the zoom comes out more convenient. I agree that fixes are better when quality is a priority. But sometimes the priority is not quality, but the very availability of the picture. Then zooms, even cheap ones, are more useful. In general, who needs what :)
I could not find an opportunity to answer your last post, so I’ll answer here in this way. You are absolutely right, I don’t do reports and therefore I have enough time to calmly set the desired lens and move to the necessary distance, and this is all leisurely)))) That's only when photographing the nature of birds and animals there is a need to use a zoom lens . and then 55-250mm comes into play)) This is how this photo was taken from a car, I myself was a driver))), a stork flew over the river in parallel to the highway.
Given the shooting conditions, the photo is just wonderful :)
Lucky)) the road was free, there was no oncoming traffic, the speed was about 40-45 km. the only pity was that there was a haze over the river that day, it is clearly visible from the trees. Here is another photo from the same car series)), I also found it from the car, the same lens - 55-250mm)))
Yeah, really good luck :) Not everyone can shoot on the go, being behind the wheel :)
Tell me, focusing on picture quality, is it worth changing the Canon EF 28-105 mm F3.5-4.5 to 17-85 if a short edge is not needed?
What's the point? If you need a wider range, look in the direction of 18-135. Moreover, stm will be preferable not only in terms of AF, but image quality compared to earlier versions 18-135.
And so - an awl for soap, there is no point in this.
The point is that 28-105, no matter how good it is, has no stabilization ... And at 105 mm to shoot sharply, you just need to have iron hands. I don't have such, so I have to give up 28-105 in favor of something stabilized.
I would not. I did not use 28-105, but judging by the reviews and tests, it is not much worse than 28-135is, which in turn is better than 17-85is. If we change, then I agree with AND at 18-135is. But if you don’t need a wide end for anything, and in general the lens suits, then you should not make a replacement.
At the long end, 28-105 is noticeably more interesting than 17-85. And lighter (4.5 vs 5.6). Why do you need such a replacement?
Canon has not a bad ef-s 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS USM. The price is just not affordable, somewhere from 27t.r.
I slightly disagree with the review. I shot with this lens for a very long time at 20d, 50d, 7d as soon as I got my hands on 18-55 I didn't even want to remember ... a good universal sharp lens with a neutral picture ... I didn't shoot from the camera ... fast accurate focus. you can find fault with the picture, but lightrum heals everything ... on a trip I only take it ...
I re-soldered the loop in it three times, a couple of hours of work and it is like new ...
there were a 17-50 tamron with a stub (light baracho compared to this), there is a 17-50 sigma with a stub (the picture is more interesting, but there are many times more misses) .. 17-85 hardly misses.
18-135 (not stm) - generally does not lie next to him. very much inferior ... both in focus and in the picture ...
in accuracy and speed of focusing is not much inferior to 24-105l.
In general, a very reliable lens (the cable does not count) :) but it will be indispensable in travel.
Yes, and I’ll add a little. sharpness at 50d and 7d is slightly worse than 20d
I’m doing it.
17-85 class reportage ob'єktiv. Nimble and accurate, Companion the frame by pressing the shutter button and instantly take a photo. Pislya 17-85 on kit 18-55 does not want to wonder. On the Canon 30D, it seems to be much more beautiful than on the 600D, less misses and the picture is better. And from Sigma 18-200 navpaki on 600D it is more beautiful to drive yourself, there is more transfer than on 30D.
About Tamron - vital to tears! :)
First, the cons:
The only serious disadvantage of the lens is the weak design and placement of the cables (the diaphragm and autofocus cables will sooner or later remind of themselves).
For 7 years I used three copies 17-85. The first (new) - four years of active shooting (sometimes in extremely uncomfortable weather conditions), then the error of the autofocus loop and sale, the second one served faithfully for a year and a half - aperture error and sale. But then I bought a third one anyway - a very cheap one, whose train flew literally six months later. But I'm not complaining - I ordered a loop with a block and a couple of loops in China - the replacement, despite the monstrousness of the disassembly guides, is not difficult. I changed the loop with the block - they work like from a factory.
The second minus is that the lens is a bit dark. Both objectively and subjectively. For the street it is normal, for good bokeh it is not enough, for premises in conjunction with a flash - no questions asked. Without a flash in a dark room, there will be trouble and sadness. Therefore, if you have the soul, hands and eyes of a strobe, then the lens will delight and delight.
The third disadvantage is that you need to get used to and understand the picture at different focal lengths and apertures. Plus, do not forget to correct CA and spherical distortions - they are, this is a fact, but they are corrected very well programmatically.
Now about the pros that forced to leave in the park optics Canon 17-85 IS USM:
# 1. 17-85 is actually the same whale as 18-55 (extreme versions, stm did not use), but a whale that stands at least one step higher than its younger counterparts. 17 mm at 17-85 and 18 mm at 18-55 are two different planets. I like the wide-angle transmission in the frame more in the 17-85 than in the 18-55. But the wide angle is somewhat insidious, tilted a little more somewhere, shifted the axis of the lens-horizon - and the picture “fell down” or squinted to the level of “into the basket”.
No. 2. The versatility of focal. It is quite enough for different needs.
No. 3. IS and USM - they work great. And most likely they are the ones that form the high price of low-mileage lenses.
Number 4. Weight and convenience when working with the camera on a bat.handle. More or less some kind of balance.
No. 5. The picture quality is better than the 18-135 and 18-200. But, as with these superzoom, in poor lighting it will be flat, without volume. The flash, albeit the simplest one for this lens - and the picture will start to please more often and more.
No. 6. As it turned out - not a difficult "maintainability". Plus, if something goes wrong, it's not a pity and it's not scary to repair it yourself.
Number 7. I have it quite working, reporting and walking character.
Everyone is talking about the "carcass stub". As for me, such a plug will be better than any version 18-55. :)))
But this lens quite suits me, it was given to me as a present with a completely new one from the age of 50. I got used to it, realized how it works and use it when traveling and everyday shooting. Unfortunately, I began to issue an error at a wide angle for repair. Of course, not without flaws, a drop in sharpness in extreme positions, but not quite bad and comfortable with hands and head)
the picture is definitely better than 18-135 !!!
Dear author, I really need your review of the Canon Ef-s 15-85mm f / 3.5-5.6 is Usm glass. To my surprise, you did not test it. They say that it is an order of magnitude better than 17-85!
The trouble with all cheap zooms is that nobody gives them away for adjustment.
Hence the stories about unstable quality and soap.
Configured in the service 17-85 works fine on all focal.
HA and vignetting are easily corrected in Laitrum.
By adjusting the lens and applying standard RAW processing methods, you can get a picture for A3 of exhibition quality.
All of the above applies, by the way, and 18-55 IS
A lot of lenses passed through me, all Canon glasses required adjustments to the autofocus hit. Without this operation, any expensive lens was usually less sharp than a cheap but aligned one. This applies primarily to zooms.
It would be interesting to compare this 17-85 with the 18-55 IS STM!
Is it worth it to change it to this 18-55 stm? Praise him.
The author of the article seems to have never held it in his hands, an awesome lens for reasonable money
If the author did not hold in his hands, there would be no review. Maybe awesome, until the train is covered. The reasonableness of the price with such shortcomings is doubtful.
Damn the photos from the place of goodness, you know everything. Cool! A dark brown look.