File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens


$400 AUD (245 USD)


Good buy?
>> Anonymous
No.
>> Anonymous
>>283289

lens with similar focal range for the same price that is better?
>> Anonymous
lens is jack of all trades, master of none
>> Anonymous
>>283299
No, but an 18-55 and 55-250 will perform significantly better if you can swap lenses.
>> Anonymous
tamron 17-50 f/2,8
canon 50 f/1,8
sigma 70-200 f/2,8

/your camera bag
>> Anonymous
even the 18-200 is better
>> Anonymous
peep the pixels yourself

the 18-55 kit lens has better performance than the 17-85

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&am
p;APIComp=0&Lens=410&Camera=396&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=251
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
get the pancake version
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>283299
similar focal range for the same price (or lower)
My recommendation goes from left to right as pictured

the 17-85 comes in dead last

it is a terrible lens

all the lenses pictured can be had for less than the 17-85, and perform much better.

In fact, you can get the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II used, along with the 18-55 II IS for less money than a 17-85 will cost. Both lenses are easily superior.
>> Foca !ZPmgSZGczM
sigma 17-70 f/2.8 -> great lens for the price. i replaced my canon 17-85 f/4 with the sigma. the canon is too slow. :(
>> Anonymous
>>283349
why the hell do you have 6 consumer-level standard zooms?
>> Anonymous
>>283352

so his e-penis is be bigger
>> Anonymous
>>283352
i'm /p/ro, and happen to have lots of equipment laying around

those are the only things i have that are relevant to the thread
>> Anonymous
>>283356
>/p/ro
then post your photos here NOW
>> Anonymous
>>283361
i don't need /p/'s opinion
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>283356
I'm pro and I only use 2 lenses on a regular basis, one happens to be a kit lens.
So that excuse is void
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
Something everyone has failed to mention so far is that lens is EF-S. If you have any intention of upgrading to full frame, why not just save up and by a decent L. Camera bodies come and go but lenses last a long time. The only EF-S lens you really should consider getting is the 10-22 and only because that focal range wouldn't be available to you on a crop camera in the EF mount.
>> Anonymous
>>283366
>why not just save up and by a decent L

17-40L has small zoom range and isn't very sharp on crop sensors. 16-35L is sharper, but has even less range and is very expensive.
All 24-something and 28-something lenses are quite awkward as standard zooms on EF-S due to the lack of wide angle.
>> Anonymous
>>283366
17-55 f/2.8 IS is pure win if you're not planning on going to full frame anytime soon
>> tizzou !!HuouSd+PYUs
The lens sucks. I have it it and hate it. It's slow and SOFT!
>>283325. He knows where it's at
>> tizzou !!HuouSd+PYUs
lens sharpness test:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=396&S
ample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=251&CameraComp=396&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&A
PIComp=0
>> Anonymous
there is no such thing as 'pro lenses' or 'consumer lenses'

Many /p/ros use consumer lenses.

There are only lenses that get the jarb done, and lenses that don't.

17-85 don't get the job done, and 18-55 IS does.

I've seen several forum discussions about how the 18-55 IS has better AF tracking than the 17-85.
>> Anonymous
>>283369
out of the price range
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>283364I'm pro and I only use 2 lenses on a regular basis, one happens to be a kit lens.

>> I'm pro
>> Anonymous
>>283376
Wow, I'm sold on the Tamron.
>> Anonymous
>>283420

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikHtZoDkInk

fucking LOL
>> Anonymous
>>283424
lol, but I've seen (heard) worse
>> Anonymous
ITT: "yes, i am a professional photographer"


LAUGH
>> Anonymous
>>283424
1) So let's trust an artificial recreation of a sound to tell how loud it is in real life?
2) Heavyweather and Jeremo used/use this lens in F mount, and AFAIK they're both satisfied with it. If it was that loud, I doubt Heavyweather would've been.
>> Anonymous
>>283429
Yeah, that's pretty quiet compard to my Nikon AF 50mm 1.8.

GRRRRRR *click* GRRRRRRR *click*
>> Anonymous
>>283393

The 50d mkII has a pretty awesome kit lens.
>> Anonymous
>>283469

5d mkII i meant.
>> Anonymous
>>283451
That's because the F-mount copies, at least from what I've seen, are all significantly quieter with the screw drives. The new D40 version is just as loud and irritating as the EF-S mount one.

Try it before you buy it. I don't mind loud lenses, but the pitch of the sound that the Tamron drives me crazy. You might not care.
>> Anonymous
>>283475
Only stalkers care about the noise coming from a focus motor
>> Anonymous
>>283451

The operation is so quick, reliable, and similar to my SLRs, I can get very quick shots on the street. Also, and this is a rarity among point and shoots: no discernible shutter lag, if you're in Snap, Infinity, or MF mode (though the manual focus is lame and sucks). No shutter sound, either. You can turn every unnecessary sound off, which is not something I think you can say for many point-and-shoot class cameras, again. It becomes a stealth camera. With the viewfinder, I don't have to frame using the terrible (and bright) screen. Instead, I've got big 21mm/28mm brightlines, and I can shoot as though I'm using a rangefinder, a la HCB, Winogrand, Erwitt, DAH, and the other Leica-using ilk.
>> Anonymous
>>283494
cool story bro
>> Anonymous
best standard zooms for Canon, no price limit

24-70 f/2.8, if you don't mind XBOX HUEG and 38mm equivalent
24-105 f/4 IS, if you don't mind LOL f/4 and 38mm equivalent
17-55 f/2.8 IS, if you don't mind crop only/paperweight/rocking full frame next year

best standard zooms for Canon, budget conscious

tamron 17-50 f/2.8, if you don't mind crop only/paperweight/rocking full frame next year and LOL TAMRON BZZZZZZZZZZ
sigma 18-50 f/2.8, if you don't mind crop only/paperweight/rocking full frame next year
tokina 16-50 f/2.8, if you don't mind crop only/paperweight/rocking full frame next year
17-85 IS, if you don't mind crop only/paperweight/rocking full frame next year, LOL VARIABLE APERTURE and LOL 18-55 IMAGE QUALITY
18-55 IS, if you don't mind crop only/paperweight/rocking full frame next year and LOL KIT LENS FAGGOT
18-200 IS, if you don't mind crop only/paperweight/rocking full frame next year and LOL KEN ROCKWELL SUPER ZOOM
>> Anonymous
>>284029

My favorite photographer Elliott Erwitt has a wonderful book called Snaps. He calls much of his work snapshots. The word implies a moment, a time, a slice of life taken with a single snap of the shutter. Its etymology is even interesting: from the early 1800s, a snapshot was a quickly execute shot at a fast-moving target. The photographic term was coined in the 1890s, when press cameras and flash powders / bulbs enabled this type of photo to exist. I think life is simply magical... amazing things happen every day. To capture that magic in a tangible record... well, that's so cool it feels like cheating. I love snapshots, I love the exhilaration that comes with chasing those moments with some strange gizmo that captures light and forms an image. I'll keep taking them until I'm pushin' up daisies.
>> Anonymous
GOOGLE MOTHERFUCKER, USE IT
>> Anonymous
get a 18-200 from tamron or sigma, win.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>284173

oh hai, meet the 18-270 VC, the world's largest zoom range for a dslr
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>284174
oh hai, meet funhouse distortion and a veritable galaxy of cromabs.
>> Anonymous
>>284389
insta art!
>> Anonymous
I'm going to assume this is Canon specific?
>> Anonymous
>>284044
>>17-85 IS, if you don't mind crop only/paperweight/rocking full frame next year, LOL VARIABLE APERTURE, SOFT IMAGES and LOL WORSE THAN 18-55 IMAGE QUALITY

fixed
>> Anonymous
>>284513
>LOL WORSE THAN 18-55 IMAGE QUALITY

This depends on which version of 18-55 we're talking about.
>> Anonymous !!8ncuFvTqnPt
Fuck off, do your price comparisons and research on google.
This sort of shit is getting gay as fuuuuck
>> Anonymous
>>284515
peep the pixels
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&am
p;APIComp=0&Lens=251&Camera=396&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=455

both are better
>> Anonymous
There's nothing wrong with EF-S. You only want full frame for wiiiide angle and for that you've got the 10-22mm EF-S lens. You can get wider than that with full frame, but that's for /p/ros only.