Just survey this lens, is it worth it if i buy this lens?? or should i get other lens? my old lens is the basic lens that comes along with 350d, in spore the price is more cheaper isnit??

This post has been edited by realstingzz: May 9 2007, 11:21 AM

Unless u really need the "IS" in this short range

buy the body and opt for 17-40F4L, then no point buying this EFS 17-85, save a lot

if you have limited budget and want a wide angel lens..can think of it but if budget allow..17-40L, 17-55

what is the different between 17-85, 17-55 and 17-40L?? and the price?? is it good for zooming? for me i like taking potraiture..nature..and sometimes cover an event so wich one suit me?

Good question. I just asked my friend to bring his 17-85 today so I can test directly with my 17-55 later... Most users of 17-85 keep complaiting... So soon later I will know if it is a real performer or user issue.

i think outdoor shoot, 17-85 got more advantage, because of the little bit longer zoom, while the 17-55 got advantage in indoor shoot, because of the constant f/2.8

above is my opinion only

Hey bro.. I think for a good lens for a good price, the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS is a really good deal..

The 17-40mm f/4L has better optics though

And the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS might be off budget if you have one already..

Not to boast or anything but I once asked a professional Canon shooter to choose between the 17-85mm and the 17-40mm. And he chose 17-85mm

if u cant afford the canon 17-55mm IS.

i suggest u can try the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8, u wouldnt regret with this lens.

go for 17-40 f/4L la... it is a L lens man, always better than normal lenses

Hard to say for sure actually. It might be good overall, but certain criteria in the optics might be beaten by other lenses. Like a review which said the Tamron 17-50 produce sharper images. But then there are other things to look at like how well it copes with dust getting INTO the lens and build quality. In my opinion, the L lens win on those grounds....

Compare to other brand's lenses mayb.

But wat i mean is compare with the 17-85 IS and the 17-55 f/3.5-5.6

17-55 f3.5-5.6? or is it 18-55 f3.5-5.6?
i remember 17-55 is f2.8..
if u mean the kit lens @ 18-55, then of course the 17-85 is a better lens between the 2..

if u plan to go full frame in the future, then 17-85 is definitely not the one for u.

err sry is 18-55 f/3.5-5.6

Future, I think ALL Canon Fullframes will be waterproof. The EOS 5D Replacement should be waterproof too I think. So the 17-85 would be redundant. So can use it now on the APS-C sensors then get rid of it when going fullframe....

I am currently using that lens. Don't know how it's compared to other lens cause I never used any other lens apart from P&S .

Here I'll post some of my crappy shots for you to evaluate if there is any help.

*praying hard for 5D replacement*

If u have that kind of money to spare, then go ahead with 17-85.

But most importantly, ask yourself..does this lens be able to fulfill what u need..

piece of advice....stay away from the 'L' disease. just as addictive as caffeine..lol

nivac,

uu bought so many L(act. 2 onli...) then tell ppl dun get addicted, regret ed a? ^.^'''

haha...no regrets with what the 'L' can offer...

just that it has some sort of aura no Canon users can resist...