Header banner
Revain logoHome Page
canon ef-s 17-85mm f/4-5.6 image stabilized usm slr lens for eos digital slr cameras - white box (bulk packaging) logo

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLR Cameras - White Box (Bulk Packaging) Review




Revainrating 3.5 out of 5  
👓 Lenses, 📷 Camera & Photo

View on Amazon


img 1 attached to Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLR Cameras - White Box (Bulk Packaging)
img 2 attached to Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLR Cameras - White Box (Bulk Packaging)
img 3 attached to Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLR Cameras - White Box (Bulk Packaging)

Photos by authors

img 4 attached to Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLR Cameras - White Box (Bulk Packaging)


Lens TypeStandard
Compatible MountingsCanon EF-S
Camera Lens Description85 millimetres
Maximum Focal Length85 Millimeters

Description of Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLR Cameras - White Box (Bulk Packaging)

Unleash Your Creative Vision with the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM SLR Lens

When it comes to capturing stunning photographs with your EOS Digital SLR, the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM SLR Lens is a versatile and powerful tool. This compact lens offers a focal length range of 17-85mm, allowing you to effortlessly switch between wide-angle and telephoto perspectives. With an aperture range of 1:4-5.6, you can achieve beautiful depth of field and capture sharp, detailed images in a variety of lighting conditions.

Exceptional Build Quality and Optics for Superior...


Global ratings 49
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1

Type of review

Revainrating 3 out of 5

There are several shortcomings, but, it corresponds to the norm.

Separately, I want to mention the unusual ergonomics of this lens - the zoom (zoom) ring reaches the usual location of the focus ring, and the focus ring is located where the zoom ring is usually located. But this feature is just a matter of habit and does not affect anything, so I will not write it down as a minus. If we compare this lens Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM head-on with another "whale" Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II (you can read more about it in my review ), then I will…

  • Wide range of focal lengths Cheap in the secondary market or in the "whale", The presence of stabilization.
  • Sharpness at medium level, Despite the presence of an ultrasonic motor, it is not fast.

I use it in the studio, it gives good sharpness from about 40mm, there are a couple of examples on my website p=265 then it would be 17-40 4.0 of the L series, for 30 thousand). Has some pros: Unlike 18-55, there is already GLASS, because this is a zoom lens, it can be both wide-angle and telephoto. Cons below: Overpriced for China, a bit dark, Not sharp at short focal lengths.

Revainrating 4 out of 5

No complaints, I recommend to buy.

Pros: Good range of focal length, for chronicles, reporting and weddings what you need, fast focus, sharp. Some cons: a little dark, it lathers weakly at small focal lengths, a year later the electronics deteriorated,

Revainrating 3 out of 5

It's not quite what I expected, overall it's ok.

Was recommended to me as the best option for my hobbyist transitioning from a 500 it turned out to be almost the same in terms of the issued quality, this is also a whale lens, only from more expensive cameras. Different pros: *Very inexpensive; * Good universal angles (you can shoot both landscapes and portraits); *Smart autofocus. Cons: * As has been said many times, a bit dark; * Lathers almost as well as 18-55 (kit); * Sucks a little bit of dust; *If you record a video, touch autofocus

Revainrating 4 out of 5

I like the product, the quality did not disappoint.

In fact, it is much better than 24-85 or even than KIT 18-55 sharpness is sometimes not enough at full resolution, everything is perfect, even the chromatism is not so felt, since the resolution of the camera is only 8 it fell from the roof for me, several times - it withstood a long crash test in the form of my climbs, but in the end it still broke the guide after falling from the roof, they fixed it for 5 So, despite the m of shortcomings and jambs - quite a thing - a good, and I don’t see…

  • good sharpness on an open (4) hole, which is quite useful, they write that 2,8, but at 2,8 soap is unrealistic, and right there, although 4,
  • It is generally impossible to shoot in ZHPEG, even everyday life and reportage, But in principle, Not suitable for a good portrait,

Revainrating 4 out of 5

Reliable product for all occasions, quality on par.

In general, I thought a lot about 24-105, I took the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 this is necessary for fine-tuning with any lens) the kit 18-55 is bad in comparison with it, if you take it as a kit, sooner or later you will start thinking about something else, but it’s better to buy right away and not think))

  • 1 The picture is bold, 3 The "pipe" does not leave, In general, the picture is not much worse than 24-105 8 worth my money, let’ I completely forgot, of course, this is a stabilizer! Fixes on such values ​​\u200b\u200bof ISO and F are smeared, but this one is not.
  • 1 17 is good. 85 or you can limit yourself to 70 2 no,

Revainrating 4 out of 5

Well done, but I wont buy any more.

In general, among my pals, he was able to sell me secondhand merchandise for 6,000. When I came along, he suffered for three to four years; there was a great deal of dust and hair behind the front lens (another drawback of it); yet, the old man served me with unwavering devotion for four years; around 40,000 frames were taken with him, yeah, yes! BOOM! And here we are in this year! and the connection that connected the diaphragm was severed ((( I was aware of it, and I was prepared. This…

  • genuine stub! look, and maintains a high degree of sharpness from 24mm to 70mm. nicely put together.
  • a lack of sharpness at 85mm and completely absent sharpness at 17mm. HA at a wide angle (17mm) is a very contrasting picture - it does not draw penumbra well.

Revainrating 4 out of 5

I like the product, the quality didn't let me down.

A fashionable substitute for a whale 18-55. The transition is similar to that of a Cossack to a Logan. When you pull your jeans up over your head, and now you are able to do it like everyone else who is normal. It is important to make an informed decision before purchasing a used option. owing to the fact that you could be overtaken by replacing the diaphragm cable. The backlash of the focusing ring happens when you lower the camera down with the lens attached, and then the trunk slips out on…

  • 1. The image quality in relation to the cost. I'm sorry, but I meant nine thousand, not the 19.5 they are asking for him today. It is completely unnecessary for 19.5 points. 2. Stabilizer. 3. Convenient focal lengths. 4. Fast and accurate autofocus 5. Extreme sharpness, even in comparison to the 17-40L. Naturally, you should not expect it on a hole that is open, but as you get to the fifth, everything starts to look pretty nice. 6. It has a nice appearance in contrast to other lens kits and other inexpensive lenses. That would be even more stunning if it had a hood.
  • 1. Insufficiently constructive. After some time has passed, the zoom ring will start to play. Because of the frayed state of the aperture cable, the lens is taken out of storage. The harness itself doesn't cost very much (200-250). It is necessary to take apart the lens entirely in order to replace it. The price of repairs in the service will start at $2500 and go up from there. Even after a year of consistent use, backlash and the aforesaid jams can still occur. 2. A vacuum with a particularly long trunk. 3. There is a distortion in the barrel at the wide end between 17 and 24, but it is not fatal. It is a characteristic that is commonly found in editors, and it is also altered in editors. 4. Chromatitis, for example, does not affect individuals between the ages of 18 and 55, which is very strange. 5. The current cost of the item. It's not that it's a bad thing, but it does mean that buying this lens won't be an option anymore.

Revainrating 2 out of 5

The product disappointed, does not meet the promises.

With its pros. Good design and price. Good photos on long (from 24) FR. Here is sob. all. Has some cons Landscapes at 17 mm - none even with the aperture clamped. Buying an expensive FA and working with this lens is not practical.

Revainrating 2 out of 5

The quality does not meet expectations, I will not buy any more.

Its pros: Low price, stabilizer, ultrasonic motor, the rest - read the shortcomings Cons below: "Soaps", especially on small FRs, at 17 mm - it is almost impossible to shoot. HA is very noticeable, it focuses poorly. The service center is powerless to improve anything.

Revainrating 2 out of 5

I didn't see good quality, solid disadvantages.

It is not worthwhile to purchase it as a universal lens that covers the focal range of 17-85; instead, you should get an analogous lens from Sigma or Tamron. Red cost between 10 and 13 thousand. You can rely on it or use a monopod or tripod in extreme circumstances. Throw out the stub from there (well, you don't need it even at 85). You will also require a front lens retainer in order to prevent the lens from being lost. Some pros: It is superior to the 18-200mm lens in terms of its use as a…

Revainrating 2 out of 5

Not a good product, not worth the money.

purchased as part of a set for sixty dimes. I usually shoot with fixes, but in order to quickly shoot the dynamics of the plot of the ransom on the forest platforms of Khrushchev, I decided to use a zoom with a wider angle - I was hungry, 90% of the frames from it are defective, where I didn't hit, where there is soap, where there are such distortions, what you pull, pull, but you can't pull out, you can't use it indoors in poor lighting without an external flash. I took it with me in order As…

  • there is only a stub left.
  • - it's gloomy - because of the enormous distortions, you can't use a wide angle for shooting landscapes - the design is bad (the trunk falls out) - it looks like a vacuum cleaner - the image quality is terrible

Revainrating 2 out of 5

Unsatisfactory quality, I will not buy this again.

A very divisive lens; after reading the reviews, it seems that various people had varied experiences with the lens they purchased; some were very sharp, while others lacked it, and some focused, while others did not. I bought a Canon 60D Kit 17-85 for myself, took some shots, and yes, of course I realize that f 4-5,6 but it's comrades, he manages to soap even when it's still very bright, so I'm curious as to what the stub is there for. In addition, I was given the advice to remove the stub once

  • hues, outward presentation. I'm not sure what else I could possibly get from myself.
  • XA, lathers at 17-24, it feels like its aperture is less than the claimed one, although the focal lengths are nice, you can't use the third of them because of the soap, the cons may be listed for a long time, and there are a lot of them.

Revainrating 4 out of 5

Nice price, good quality.

A wonderful, insightful, and precise optic that produces a magnificent image. Yet, there are a few benefits and drawbacks associated with it. You need to have the ability to use those, just like any other complicated piece of technology. Personally, I made it a point to avoid using it at really long focal lengths and with the aperture wide open unless it was absolutely necessary to do so. Even though there will be some blurriness due to the fully open hole, it might not be a problem for a…

  • Quick focusing, great picture, decent stabilizer, accessible buttons, reliable. He has been with me in environments ranging from extremely humid (the tropical downpour in Thailand, for example) to extremely cold (beyond the Arctic Circle), and nothing bad has happened to him in either environment.
  • Very dark, an excessively wide range of focus lengths (more than three times), and a slight soapy quality at the extreme values of focal lengths and when the aperture is wide open.

Revainrating 4 out of 5

All is well, liked the product, didn't buy it for nothing.

good lens. I use it with 1100D, because I don’t do photography professionally, I have enough. I take pictures just for myself. good shots can be obtained. Its pros: very convenient that there is a sharpness setting, focal length 17-85, unlike my last "whale" lens, where it was 18-55 - this is progress, beautiful photos are obtained if you adapt With its cons. heavy at first I constantly confused the sharpness wheel with the focal length wheel, sometimes photos turn out to be blurry…