Canon EF-S 17-85mm - Good buy or not?

sombaht

Hi,
I'm about to get a 350D (body only) and was wondering what lenses would best suit it? I have a few existing lenses from my non DSLR (also a canon). They are . . .
Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

I was thinking of getting the new Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM as this would pretty much match the focal length of the 28-105 I already have. However reviews of the 17-85 seem to be somewhat mixed, with many seeing a lot of barrel distortion and CA particularly at the wider end. Anyone here got a 17-85 and care to comment?
Also I plan to travel to Cambodia to visit Angkor Wat this year, would the 17-85 be wide enough to do justice to the temples or should I forget it alltogether and look at something like the EF-S 10-22 for true wide angle shots?

Thanks for any advice,
sombaht

joolsveer

If you still use the slr would you not be better to shy away from the EF-S range altogether? I have a 1000FN and a 350D and it is something which would colour my view if I was buying a wideangle as I would like to be able to use it on both cameras.

Dimy

I agree with jools, a good alternative would be the Sigma 10-20mm ultra wide angle, it has a Canon EF mount so can be used on both cameras, although vignetting will occur on the wide side if used on a full frame body. Fajitas is using this lens on both a digital and analog camera so he might give his thought about it.

sombaht

Well I can't see myself using the non DSLR at all once I get the 350D, plus I won't be making the move to a full frame sensor camera anytime soon so investing in EF-S leneses isn't a big worry for me.

I'm leaning towards the 17-85 more and more due to its range,(27 - 136 on a 350D) its appears to be a good travel lens.

Cheers,
sombaht

andy1249

I too have a canon 300x film and a 20D digital , I bought myself a lot of lenses in the states recently and got the chance to try out that EF-S 17-85 , in my opinion the EF lenses are better and you should try and stick to those.

As mentioned they work with both , and are generally better quality due to being made for full frame ( they tend to be sharp across the whole of an APS size sensor such as the 350D or 20D ....same sensor I believe ! ) And if you ever step up to full frame digital then you already have some lenses.

For Wide angle in Angkor wat , why not try the photostitch software supplied by canon , all you need is a tripod with a spirit level !!

The wide angle EF-S lenses are also an option but Ive seen reviews where the Tamron and Sigma do slightly better than the Canon.

Enygma

I have the 17-85 on my 20D most of the time. I find it's a great walkaround/travel lens, it's got a very good range and the IS is fantastic for walkabout when you don't have a monopod/tripod.

While the image quality isn't L standard it's quite good. I've found the image quality to be far superior to my Sigma 70-300.

I took most of these pics with the 17-85 in California last Feb and I'm pretty happy with them.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/corksurf/sets/72057594072216812/


People often ask me if I used a polarizing filter on that particular lens too, because the blue sky colors come out really well. I only have a UV filter on it

If you're looking for a good walkabout/holiday lens I highly recommend it. If you're looking for something ultra sharp or ultra wide go for an L prime.

Andy, I'm not sure why you say that a lens designed for full frame is generally better, can you explain?

CoolBoardr

I shot Ankor Wat with the 350D kit lens (18-55) and it was plenty wide enough. Make sure you go at sunrise for the best light and bring a tripod.

Fajitas!

Dimy wrote:

I agree with jools, a good alternative would be the Sigma 10-20mm ultra wide angle, it has a Canon EF mount so can be used on both cameras, although vignetting will occur on the wide side if used on a full frame body. Fajitas is using this lens on both a digital and analog camera so he might give his thought about it.

Nice lens in general, really useful IMO. Digital, works as would expected. On a film camera, you get a lot of vignetting on the left and right hand side, but I'm one of these odd people that quite likes vignetting, so use it a fair bit.

andy1249

Enygma , here's why ,

For any particular lens the image is generally the sharpest in the middle of the lens , with any abberrations starting to show as you approach the edges of the frame ,
Given that the aps-c or digital size sensors are 24mm and not 35 mm as in film , then the sensor is more concentrated towards the middle of the lens where the sharpness and picture quality is better.

So what im saying is , that when you are using a 350D or a 20D ( as opposed to a 5D say ) then with EF lens you tend to get a better picture quality as the lens are made for 35 mm film frame instead of for a 24mm aps sensor, and with the 24 mm sensor you are nowhere near the edge of the glass where the lens shortcomings start to appear.

Hope this is clear but if not here is the review page from the 5D which brings this up and also explains why an EF-S is no good on a full frame digital.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page12.asp

Enygma

Ah ha, so the EF-S lenses actually have a smaller image circle. For some reason I presumed the image circle was the same as an EF lens. Sorry for bringing this OT. Back on topic now Thanks Andy!

EireRoadUser

sombaht wrote:

Well I can't see myself using the non DSLR at all once I get the 350D, plus I won't be making the move to a full frame sensor camera anytime soon so investing in EF-S leneses isn't a big worry for me.

I'm leaning towards the 17-85 more and more due to its range,(27 - 136 on a 350D) its appears to be a good travel lens.

Cheers,
sombaht

There is no conversion in size when S is in the description.
Any EF-S lense stays the same on a Small sensored digital camera.

Personally I wouldn't spend anymore than 3 or 4 hundred euro on an S lense unless it was one I could leave on the camera all the time.

andy1249

Begging your pardon but there is a conversion factor of 1.6 on an EF-S lens attached to both a 350D and a 20D. The 18 - 55 kit lens is supposed to cover the 27 - 90 kit lens generally given with a film camera and thats exactly what it does ,
I have both an EOS 300x film camera and a 20D and can verify that !!

The Ultra Wide EF-S 10 -20 mm gives a 16mm - 32mm range , I can verify that too!

EireRoadUser

Why mention the S then in the name ,what is the S for .

If a EFS 17-85 is put on a 350D it stays a 17-85 as it's the camera it was made for I thought, begging your pardon.
If i put my 70-200F4L on my 350D it makes the lense a 120-320 or thereabouts,I also have a 30mm 1.4 DC lenses which is the sigma equivalent of EFS and it stays at 30mm.
If you don't have a small sensored camera then the EFS lenses numbers change.

joolsveer

EireRoadUser wrote:

Why mention the S then in the name ,what is the S for .

If a EFS 17-85 is put on a 350D it stays a 17-85 as it's the camera it was made for I thought, begging your pardon.
If i put my 70-200F4L on my 350D it makes the lense a 120-320 or thereabouts,I also have a 30mm 1.4 DC lenses which is the sigma equivalent of EFS and it stays at 30mm.
If you don't have a small sensored camera then the EFS lenses numbers change.

I don't know why they decided on S but essentially what it means is that the lens cannot cover the 36mm X 24mm frame which is a full frame 35mm film camera frame. For the sensor in a 350D the lens only had to cover 63% of the area so the S lenses are designed cover only this.

EireRoadUser

S is for small back view ,glass is closer to the sensor.
EFS lenses aren't suppose to be used on EF cameras as they touch the mirror of the camera .

rabbitinlights

I bought the 350D with the 17-85mm, Im going travelling (1-2yrs) soon and I needed a decent allinone lense for the trip. Im very impressed with the quality of the prints (A3 prints are very sharp). I find the IS is great for handheld shots and there is very little searching under poor light. Its not a cheap lense, but its exactly what I needed and im very happy with it and would recommend it to anyone.

Where are you buying your gear? Online or a bricks n' mortar?

It also fits in nicely between the 90-300 and 10-20 sigmas.

andy1249

Look lads , sorry but this misapprehension about EF-S has to go , heres a review of two EF-S lens on Dpreview , read the first two lines lads ,

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0408/04081907canon_efs_flash.asp

This is a fact. EF-S lens are designed for a smaller frame , its the smaller frame that decides the crop factor or effective zoom , it doesnt matter what type of lens goes on the camera its the smaller sensor frame that changes the effective focal distance and thats all there is to it !!

EireRoadUser

On a 20D/30D 300/350D
If I take a shot in RAW mode with an EF-S lense at 70mm ,the shot is actually been taken at 70mm.
If i take a shot in Raw mode with an EF lense at 70mm the shot is actually taken at more than 70mm so the imformation in the file info is wrong.

andy1249

How are you measuring this here , or where are you getting the info from , are you reading this off your camera files or is it being reported in the software or what ?

Exif data will read the focal length setting of a particular lens , including and EF-S lens and tell you it's say , 18 mm , but because of the 1.6X crop its not actually 18mm equiv , its 28 , a true 18mm would be a very wide angle shot on a 35mm.

Same as on my 20d with my EF 28 - 135 lens , the Exif data will tell me 28 at wide angle but its not , its 40 , no matter what the file info says !

EireRoadUser

andy1249 wrote:

Same as on my 20d with my EF 28 - 135 lens , the Exif data will tell me 28 at wide angle but its not , its 40 , no matter what the file info says !

Thats all I was saying ,theres no need with an EFS lense to do this calculation.:)

EireRoadUser

What I notice about Zoom lenses that change in size when focussing ,they drag in dust into the camera when they move in and out.
Unlike the 17-40 that has this internally.

Enygma

EireRoadUser, I think you'll find that you still have to apply the crop factor to EF-S lenses alright. The 17-85 was designed as a digital equivalent to the 28-135IS lens and it covers pretty much exactly the same focal lengths.

EireRoadUser

I know what your saying ,I've no history in 35mm so I am just trying to make it easy for myself.

I do think canon should be a bit clearer on the fact that EFS lenses wont work on EF cameras.At least thats what I read on Dpreview, it says they did there best not to allow people to attach EFS lenses to EF cameras as the protruding bit tips off the EF mirror and damages it.

Be careful fokes ,350D is only an entry model.
EDIT : This thread was typed while i was under the influence ,so may it have no influence on you

EireRoadUser

EXTRACT FROM A WEBSITE BELOW

How do I know whether a lens I purchase on the internet will fit the camera body?

If it is a Canon EF or EF-S mount, it will fit. The "S" in "EF-S" means "short backfocus" and is a variant of the EF mount in which the back of the lens lens protrudes farther into the camera body than with EF. This is possible because the sensor in a camera that can take such lenses is smaller than the sensor in a 35mm camera which means the mirror is also smaller. The advantage is that lenses can be made smaller, lighter, and less expensive -- at least theoretically. The 18-55mm kit lens is an EF-S lens. All EF-S cameras can take EF or EF-S lenses, but cameras with bigger sensors (e.g. Canon 1D line) can only take EF lenses. If there is any chance you will ever want to use a lens on a 35mm film or "full-frame" digital camera, you should avoid EF-S lenses. That said, I don't think there's really any reason to avoid them.

sombaht

Rabbit,
Glad to hear that you like the lens. I will be buying online (either Digital Wonderland or AC-foto). Prices in "proper" shops here in Limerick are ridiculous!

Cheers,
sombaht

rabbitinlights

Good man, I got it with the 350D and a 1.8 50mm on AC-FOTO.com, great service and fast delivery.

Hope you like it if you go for it.

S.