. I would like to make a complaint to canon, let them provide a new Canon EF-S 17-85mm f / 4-5.6 IS USM Lens to replace two non-working ones .! why did you zoom so badly!? . the lens is good . but damn it . why is the zoom so weak! ((( Has some pros the 17-85 lens is ideal for my shooting. it's a portrait. and nature photography. and product photography for catalogs. With its cons. but there is also a huge problem . I already have two such dead lenses . a very weak zoom mechanism . with my…

It’s not worth buying as a universal to cover focal 17-85, it’s better to take an analogue from Sigma or Tamron. Red price 10-13 thousand. Throw out the stub from there (well, you don’t need it even at 85), in extreme cases, you can rely on it or use a monopod / tripod. You also need a front lens retainer so that it does not fall out. Some pros: As a whale lens goes, it's better than 18-200. Often helped out when you need a fairly wide angle and distortion effect (which abounds at wide…

He served me faithfully for 5 years. And it would still work and work if it were not for the notorious diaphragm plume. Who says that he is a vacuum cleaner, do not believe. Dismantled - inside sterile cleanliness. Until it broke, I was very pleased with it. If canon corrected the design miscalculation with the cable, I would buy the same one again. Has some pros Ultrasonic focus motor. Stabilizer. Depth of field (although sometimes this is a drawback) Some cons: THE DIAPHRAGM LINE DIES…

Went like a whale. A good lens for reportage shooting (you definitely need a flash), but for artistic shooting (which I gravitate towards more) it is not very suitable due to the specific study of shadows and an uninteresting pattern. I'm going to change to Sigma 17-70 or 17-50 Different pros: + Convenient focal range + Fast and accurate focusing + Focus distance scale + Good stabilizer + There is a macro, albeit with a slight increase Its cons: - Sharpness at extreme values…

The lens did not please. You can print A4, but the baby LX3 can do it too. Tamron 17-50 / 2.8 is catastrophically inferior in quality. HA can be muffled, but the sharpness of the image does not increase from this. He endured, endured - and took him to Savelovsky! For any price. Because I won’t shoot with such glass anyway. Got pros: Convenient range of focal lengths. Looks solid. Sharp in the center. With its cons. Strong chromatic aberration throughout the entire focal range (at 200%…

Went like a whale with a Canon 60D. For everyday shooting on the street, that’s it. Not bad focal lengths 17-85. I also ordered a lens hood for it. natural light conditions, where this glass is enough. And for more beautiful bokeh in portraiture and at home, I took a Canon EF 50 f / 1.4 USM fast aperture. Its pros: Quite sharp, USM, stabilizer, looks solid on my Canon 60D, fast AF, produces not bad colors. With its cons. There is no lens hood included with the lens, the manual focus ring is not

I have been using this lens for several years now, but in the near future I will change it to something else. I do not advise using it as a staff member - you are tired of raising the "Leaning Towers of Pisa". They also can’t shoot a portrait, again because of distortions. As a width - nothing, but dark and very chromate, especially at the far end. Pros below: Large FR range, wide angle (can be used as a wide for landscapes and three-dimensional scenes), the presence of a stub. Cons: Small…

I took a whale to replace it, in general, of course, it’s a little better, but I still can’t achieve “ringing sharpness” in the pictures, which didn’t work on the whale, what doesn’t work here, damn it, people on a budget Nikon with a whale had sharper photos in similar conditions , and they also shot everything on the machine, and I shot with aperture priority.

I have been shooting for about 1 year and immediately took this lens. And to be honest, I don't regret it. Sometimes it happens when he just infuriates me, for example, when he smears a running dog or yellows photos despite the BB. In general, a good thing, believe me, for this money you will not find a better option than 17-85. It is perfect for landscape photography, because. wide-angle, makes good portraits, I love to shoot flowers on it - a fairy tale is simple. If you are interested in…

bought in a kit with 60d. I took it to shoot a wedding, I usually shoot with fixes, but 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. As a result, the lens was…

Honestly, I bought it with a KIT with a Canon 40D in Germany, paid 899Eur for this kit. After deducting tax-free - 110 EUR came out at a very good price - this is a great advantage of the purchase. This is my first digital SLR and I expected more precisely in terms of sharpness, detailing of pictures. But, optimistically, a lens for study and assistance in the further choice of other optics will fit - because. at 2022 prices, such a kit came out cheaper than body in 2022.

For problems with aperture ratio (it’s hard to shoot indoors), I bought a flash. Once after filming in extremely low temperatures (driving on a snowboard and shooting), the burst mode stopped working. Reconnecting helped. Some write "vacuum cleaner" - I personally pah-pah-pah did not notice this. In general, I thought this was a problem only for televisions. Although, I always have a camera in my bag - maybe it has been saving me for 2-3 years already. P. S. It seems to me that now it is…

I took to try two different copies from two different people. they are as different as heaven and earth. one has constant autofocus errors even with good lighting and contrasting compositions, the trunk leaves - the sensations were terrible (half of the photos were marriage). took another copy - completely different. elastic zoom, fast and accurate focus, even in the dark, normal focus. the stub significantly stretches the photo in poor lighting . I didn’t even expect such sensations on whale…

You can’t compare with fixes, but for a zoom it’s quite a good lens. There is a wide angle. Fairly clear, although it can be better. But more expensive :) Aperture is not enough, of course, although the stabilizer partially compensates for this. A good universal standard lens with a wide angle, although a bit expensive for such quality. Added: After six months of use, I sucked dust inside :( Plus, the trunk began to move out by itself, it is inconvenient to carry, you have to hold it.

I bought this unit 2 months ago, I’m happy as a boa constrictor. The photos are clear, bright, lively. It sometimes misses auto focus, 10 to 2. I didn’t grab any dust or a speck on vacation in Thailand, although it happened that you would take it with sandy hands. Annoyed the trunk fell out from time to time. but in general I really like the lens, I even think to sell 50 mm, because I don’t see the point in it.

Used for over a year with a 40D (it was a kit lens) until I bought a 24-105 F/4L to replace it. To understand what you want from photography - that's it. Wide enough for landscapes, long enough for portraits. There was not always enough aperture, especially since at the long end the aperture is already at least 5.6. For an initial breakthrough - a very worthy lens. All the same, if you buy new ones, then elks.

After filming mountain bike competitions, I realized that the lens should be sold and bought 24-105, even if there is no wide angle, but this one only gives normal pictures at iso200 in clear weather . In general, taking into account the average price of 14.5 thousand, the lens is 3+. It makes sense to take it as a kit lens for the first year while you are studying.

Take it like a whale. Attracted: the range of focal lengths, the presence of a stub, USM. I have been using it for 2 years, no dust inside - it saves the protective filter (I installed it immediately upon purchase). On the FR range of 35-85, the sharpness is quite decent. But a wide angle is also needed - it's cool to shoot cars at close range :-) If not aperture - a very good lens .

in general, my friends, he got me used for 6000. before me, he was tormented for 3-4 years, there was a lot of dust and hair under the front lens (another minus of it) for 4 years the old man served me faithfully, about 40,000 frames were shot on him, yes, yes!))) and here in this year - BOOM! and the diaphragm cable broke (((I knew about it and was ready. in my opinion, this glass is well suited for reporting (smart AF) with powerful external puff. the hole is narrow))) for an art photo, you…

A very controversial lens, reading the reviews, it seemed that people came across different lenses, some were very sharp, others had it, some focused, others did not. I took a Canon 60D Kit 17-85 for myself, took pictures, of course I understand that f 4-5,6 but it’s comrades, he manages to soap even when it’s still quite light, I wonder what the stub is there. Moreover, I heard a recommendation to turn off the stub when it is light enough and it really got better. It is very difficult to get a