Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM Softness

dla

I've been shooting the 17-85 IS USM for about a year and a half now, and I've become more and more unhappy with the softness of the lens.

For a long time, I thought it was my technique but last weekend I finally got a new lens and my pictures were greatly improved.

So now I'm in the market for a wide angle lens (and it does not need to have the zoom this has.)

I'm leaning towards the 16-35mm F2.8L II, but it's so expensive.

Any advice? :dunno

DJT

Don't know anything about the lens yet, but Ziggy recommended the Tamron 17-50mm, f/2.8 XR Di II for my upcoming on the way Canon 40D

ziggy53

dla wrote:

I've been shooting the 17-85 IS USM for about a year and a half now, and I've become more and more unhappy with the softness of the lens.

For a long time, I thought it was my technique but last weekend I finally got a new lens and my pictures were greatly improved.

So now I'm in the market for a wide angle lens (and it does not need to have the zoom this has.)

I'm leaning towards the 16-35mm F2.8L II, but it's so expensive.

Any advice?

Since you mention the Canon EF-S 17-85mm, f/4-5.6 IS USM I will assume you will use this new lens on a Canon crop 1.6x camera?

My favorite recommendation is the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM for a "standard" zoom. If you don't need the IS, the Tamron 17-50mm, f/2.8 XR Di II is a very good alternative.

I also have the Canon EF 17-40mm, f/4.0 L USM which works fine on a "crop" Canon camera. (I do have a Sigma 18-50mm, DC f:2.8 EX (non Macro) and when it is in focus it is very nice, but maybe 25% of the time it misses focus. I am now aware of the focus issue and can usually tell when it is out of focus and just bump the shutter button again and it snaps to focus.)

The Canon 17-55mm, f2.8 IS is by far my favorite.

dla

Yeah, this will be used on a 40D mostly for landscape type work.

You think the 17-55 F2.8 IS USM will be a big improvement in sharpness/overall quality over the 17-85?

Cuong

dla wrote:

Yeah, this will be used on a 40D mostly for landscape type work.

You think the 17-55 F2.8 IS USM will be a big improvement in sharpness/overall quality over the 17-85?

I and many on this forum can attest to the excellent quality of the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8.

Cuong

ziggy53

dla wrote:

Yeah, this will be used on a 40D mostly for landscape type work.

You think the 17-55 F2.8 IS USM will be a big improvement in sharpness/overall quality over the 17-85?

I actually like the Sigma 18-50mm, DC f2.8 EX better for most landscapes in that range, and I honestly don't know why. The Canon 17-55, F2.8 IS USM is much better for interior and event work. I suspect you would especially appreciate the Canon 17-55, F2.8 IS used wide open as it is usable and helps to isolate the subject from the background (when appropriate.) By f4 it is extremely sharp. f5.6 seems to be the sweet spot for absolute sharpness.

The 17-85mm, f/4-5.6 IS is just not sharp enough for my use wide open and that makes it a very slow lens in practical use.

For vista landscapes I normally use a Sigma 10-20mm, f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM. For landscapes in the "normal/standard" zoom range I will use either the Sigma 18-50mm, DC f2.8 EX or the Canon 17-55, F2.8 IS USM, whichever I have handy. For longer landscape purposes I have used the Canon EF 70-200mm, f/2.8L USM but I just recently got the Canon EF 70-200mm, f/4L IS USM and I will start using that lens.

Bottom line is that yes, the Canon 17-55, F2.8 IS is probably going to be preferred over the Canon 17-85mm, f/4-5.6 IS in the same range. Whether it is "a big improvement in sharpness/overall quality" is relative but I put my money in the 17-55, F2.8 IS.