Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM: I'm getting ready to buy a new lens and I'm looking at the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I will be using the lens for mostly landscape. Does...

pappy0352 Loc: Oregon

I'm getting ready to buy a new lens and I'm looking at the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I will be using the lens for mostly landscape. Does anyone on the site have this lens and if so how well do you like it?

Pappy

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Don't have it, never used one - but I do recall reading some unflattering comments about it. I use the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 and have no complaints....

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

When I had my Canon T1i, the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM was my walk around lens. It was much sharper than my kit lens and also was built much better.

I never did much landscape photography with it. I used it quite a bit for photos of one of my trips to Washington, D.C.. and another trip to Las Vegas. I was very happy with it until I got the Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS USM lens. Most of my photography was between 30mm to 80mm.

I had to have the ribbon cable replaced for the AF once. It seems to be a common problem for this lens.

Burt Hollen Loc: King of Prussia, Pa

I had the 17-85 and it was a pretty good lens and I used it a lot until the 15-85 came out. The 15-85 is a little better built and took great shots. There were some problems with some copies of the 17-85. After awhile they developed focusing problems. I would recommend the 15-85.

kubota king Loc: NW , Pa.

I have that lens . The auto focus wont lock in on the subject any more , it just keeps trying . I replaced it with the newer , better EFS 15-85mm f3.5 /f5.6 canon lens .

ralphc4176 Loc: Conyers, GA

I haven't used that lens, but 17 mm seems to me to be too wide for landscape photos, and on the really wide-angle side for most photography, even on an APS-C camera..

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

imagemeister wrote:

Don't have it, never used one - but I do recall reading some unflattering comments about it. I use the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 and have no complaints....

I use the Sigma 17-70 also, like it , Bob.

pappy0352 Loc: Oregon

Thank you all for the information. After reading the thread I'm going to hold off on this lens.

pappy

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

pappy0352 wrote:

I'm getting ready to buy a new lens and I'm looking at the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I will be using the lens for mostly landscape. Does anyone on the site have this lens and if so how well do you like it?

Pappy

Keep in mind this lens is not portable to full frame bodies. Serious landscape shooters generally use FF for their work. Those are valuable focal lengths for landscapers. Food for thought. :lol:

al davis Loc: chesterfield virginia

pappy0352 wrote:

I'm getting ready to buy a new lens and I'm looking at the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I will be using the lens for mostly landscape. Does anyone on the site have this lens and if so how well do you like it?

Pappy

Pappy I had that lens and thought the image quality was bad for my taste. I traded it in at adorama and bought the Tokina 11 to 16 2.8. it is still a crop sensor lens and is hands down a much better lens. The build quality is there and also the image quality. I have never used the 2.8 apature but it is still there if ever the need arises. I use my Tokina for car shows that I do get paid for and have never had any complaints. I know I sound like a Tokina sales man :D But I am much happier with this lens. In my opinion one of canons not so good lenses. If your budget will allow it get the tokina or even the sigma 10 to 20 f4 to 5.6 for better results.

steveo52 Loc: Rhode Island and Ocala Florida

imagemeister wrote:

Don't have it, never used one - but I do recall reading some unflattering comments about it. I use the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 and have no complaints....

Add another user of the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.0 here. No complaints and the lens stays on my camera a good deal of the time I shoot.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

ralphc4176 wrote:

I haven't used that lens, but 17 mm seems to me to be too wide for landscape photos, and on the really wide-angle side for most photography, even on an APS-C camera..

Huh? I use my UWA at 10-18 mm for landscapes and citycapes. I also use the the Canon 15-85 at 15mm quite often for landscapes. What do you mean 17mm is too wide for landscapes? And you say it's also a really wide angle for most photography? Wow, I just spent 3 days in Philadelphia with the wrong lens. I used my new 10-18 as a walk around to get some great wide angle cityscapes. I guess all those other folks using a Canon 10-22mm lens on crop bodies, or a Canon 16-35 mm lenses on FF bodies, regularly for landscapes must feel like idiots after your revelation. :)

anotherview Loc: California

Own it and have used it. But I can recommend the new Sigma 17-70mm lens over it. I use this Sigma lens on my Canon T4i as a walk-around combo hard to beat..

pappy0352 wrote:

I'm getting ready to buy a new lens and I'm looking at the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I will be using the lens for mostly landscape. Does anyone on the site have this lens and if so how well do you like it?

Pappy