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

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…

Friends, in the reviews everyone writes about HA, all this is treated, if you are not lazy and do the adjustment! My trunk has never left.

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.

I took a canon 60 I consider one of the best lenses in this price category! In good light, very fast and sharp! Life does not embellish and gives natural colors! Washes the background easily! One minus-dark!

Used for over a year with a 40D (it was a kit lens) until I bought a 24-105 F/4 especially since at the long end the aperture is already at least 5.6 All the same, if you buy new ones, then elks.

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).

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,

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

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…

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))

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…

Pros below: Sufficiently versatile zoom, excellent stabilizer, fast focusing. Affordable price for its class. With its cons. Soapy, not sharp, rather "dark optics", vacuum cleaner, 17 - 20mm - barrel.

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…

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.

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.

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…

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…

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

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…

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…