Ef-s 17-85 Is

DanielB

i've heard fantastic things about this lense, and the IS is very attractive because i have shakey hands...one catch. i have a 10D...:cry


has anyone ever heard of or used one of these lenses modified for EF mounts:dunno i know people do it on the 18-55, so couldn't you do it on this one:scratch


thanks,

Daniel

ChrisJ

Hi Daniel,

I can't comment on the modified mount, but I've been really happy with my 17-85 EF-S on the 20D. All my pictures from the Auto Show were with that lens.

TristanP

DanielB wrote:

has anyone ever heard of or used one of these lenses modified for EF mounts?

Yes, fstopjojo has done it. Here's his process. Seems simple enough.

DanielB

TristanP wrote:

Yes, fstopjojo has done it. Here's his process. Seems simple enough.

so technically i would just have to have a spare baffle lying around *which i do* to use....


seems like it would take nerves of steel though:uhoh

Bodley

DanielB wrote:

i've heard fantastic things about this lense, and the IS is very attractive because i have shakey hands...one catch. i have a 10D...:cry


Daniel

Thought you were moving to the Dark-Side (Nikon)

DanielB

Bodley wrote:

Thought you were moving to the Dark-Side (Nikon)

:nah ,

thought about it seriously... but i really need the High ISO/low noise factor and i don't wanna spend alot of money on Nikkor low-light lenses, when i could just boost the ISO on my 20D *will be getting it sometime this summer*

i shoot alot at night, and alot of night sports/indoor sports.

chrisjlee

review? maybe you've already seen this.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=222&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

DanielB

chrisjlee wrote:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=222&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

i've seen it, and actually i'm kind of partial to barrel distortion well...no i take that back. it depends on the subject matter, sometimes you get an ALMOST fisheye effect.

only time i would really use 17 is for a really wide shot, or i would just bump it up to 24ish for most....

but i think i'll go for a 17-40 or teh new Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 for a wider end zoom...

marlof

If you're thinking about using this from 24 and up, and you're going to buy the 17-40 as well, why not keep saving for the 24-105 in stead of the 17-85 IS which you'd have to mod anyhow? It seems like the 24-105 is the lens you'd really like. I know what it is to have limited funds, but I also that sometimes it's simply better to keep saving for something you really want, in stead of spending money on something that is not exactly what you want. On the other hand, it's more than twice the price, so if that's worth the wait, I don't know. After all, sometimes it's better to shoot with a lens, than to wait for one, depending on how long the wait is...

Red Bull

I've always gone with the "save up and wait" idea rather than the "I'll get this first then upgrade later". I, too have a very limited budget, but I would much rather wait and get a really nice lens. One that I will be very happy with and that I'll keep for a long time. In the end if you buy cheap(er) first then upgrade, you end up spending more money.

Besides, you don't even have enough saved up for your 70-200 and you are already contemplating another one? Wait until you at least have the 70-200!

Matthew Saville

http://matthewsaville.smugmug.com/gallery/1152389

Some of the pics in this gallery were taken with the 20D and the 17-85 IS, others are with my D70 and 24-85 AFS. (check the exif too for some ideas of the shutter speeds you can get with the IS...) The shots are down-sampled to 2.8 r 1.6 megapixel JPG's, but if you want to see some 8 MP JPG images you can view two here:

http://matthewsaville.smugmug.com/gallery/261021

Here's my take: It's an awesome lens, and the IS definitely beats the heck out of any lens w/o IS, for general applications at least. It's a "mother of all walkaround lenses" for sure.

...For Canon that is- I've also had the opportunity to shoot with the D200 and the 18-200 VR and THAT does take the cake... And while the D200 body is much more expensive than the 20D, the 18-200 VR isn't all that more expensive than the 17-85 IS, but with 115mm extra on the tele end that just make you wonder how on earth they did it...

So, unofficially, as a "walkaround" setup I'd prefer a Nikon D50 (which does have excellent ISO 1600) and the 18-200 VR instead of a Canon and a 17-85. But I were if required to "produce" in any high-performance applications, that is to say if photography is more than just something you do to document a family evet etc., then the 20D of course is THE prosumer DSLR to buy right now, since it's dropping below $1000 on Ebay, what with the 30D lurking in the wings... The 17-85 IS will do a great job on the 20D, and it's definitely worth it.

I'm sure the 24-105 is a bit more sturd and sharper, but with it's constant f/4 apeture I just don't think it's worth the investment if you're more interested in an "all-in-one" lens. The 17-85 definitely fits the bill much better if 20x30" prints aren't your priority...

-Matt-