# Don't Bother With This Lens



## Azyiu (Nov 12, 2007)

I am a Canon user, and have been very very happy with most of their SLRs and lenses. That said, do not even bother with this EF-S 17-85mm f/4 - 5.6 IS lens EOS (SLR) Camera Systems - Standard Zoom - EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM - Canon USA Consumer Products

I bought it for just over 2 years, and it already needed three major repairs for various reasons.  When the lens actually works, its quality isn't even the greatest to say the least. Anyway, I am very disappointed with it now.


----------



## Apophis (Nov 12, 2007)




----------



## Steve (Nov 12, 2007)

Damn.... I'm looking into buying a IS Lens for my Cannon EOS..... Can you recommend any other manufacturers?


----------



## Azyiu (Nov 12, 2007)

Steve said:


> Damn.... I'm looking into buying a IS Lens for my Cannon EOS..... Can you recommend any other manufacturers?



Overall, Canon still produces better lenses then other companies like Sigma and Tamaron etc, so I actually suggest you stick with Canon. As long as you stay away from this said lens, you will be fine, seriously. So what kind of range do you need? Let me know and I might be able to recommend you something.

After owning an IS lens for such a long time, I realized you don't really need the IS at all. In fact, in this case, half the lens' price went to the IS, and I thought it is unnecessary.

My view on the IS is that, you would use a tripod or monopod if you are shooting in a darker location. And when you do, you are adviced to turn the IS off anyway. Or you would be using a flash. Either way, I just don't see the IS as something you look for in choosing a lens.


----------



## Decreate (Nov 13, 2007)

I guess IS is useful in places where its inconvenient to set up a tripod....would really like to try the 70-200mm L F2.8 IS...


----------



## Azyiu (Nov 13, 2007)

Decreate said:


> I guess IS is useful in places where its inconvenient to set up a tripod....would really like to try the 70-200mm L F2.8 IS...



Yes and no.

In fact, I own the 70 - 200MM L f/2.8 (without IS), and all I can say is, for such a heavy lens, the IS version basically defeats its purpose. Originally I wanted the IS version too, then after trying it I decided to get the non-IS one. 

See, the IS version is almost half a pound heavier (@ around 3.5lbs) and is at least $400 more expensive. At that weight, you still can't guarantee the IS would do its magic without using a tripod or a monopod. I just don't see why I need to spend another $400 JUST for the IS I might not use at all.  Of course, if you have a real need for the IS, by all means...


----------



## nyck (Nov 14, 2007)

f4?
That's way too slow for my uses. I'll stick to my Pentax SMC-A 50mm F1.7


----------



## Azyiu (Nov 14, 2007)

nyck said:


> f4?
> That's way too slow for my uses. I'll stick to my Pentax SMC-A 50mm F1.7



I do also own a Canon EF 50mm f/1.4, ha!


----------



## nyck (Nov 14, 2007)

Awesome!


----------



## Azyiu (Nov 14, 2007)

It is a damn good lens (I mean the 50mm f/1.4)... it sucks that I don't have another wide angle for the moment... ahhhhhh!!!


----------



## nyck (Nov 14, 2007)

Haha I'm actually looking for a good wide angle lens too. I have an old 28mm f2.8 Phoenix but it's not as sharp as I would like it to be...and I'd rather have something a little under 20mm.


----------



## Azyiu (Nov 14, 2007)

What SLR body do you own?


----------



## Decreate (Nov 14, 2007)

Azyiu said:


> It is a damn good lens (I mean the 50mm f/1.4)... it sucks that I don't have another wide angle for the moment... ahhhhhh!!!



Why don't you get the 16-35 Mk II, heard its pretty good.


----------



## Azyiu (Nov 14, 2007)

^ very true, but it also costs at least 4 times as much as the 50mm f/1.4  

That said, I miiiiiiight just do that if or when I go full frame down the road. Currently the only choice within a reasonable price range is the 5D, but I hated that D-SLR very much.  I KNOW Canon can do better and go cheaper than THAT. So I am gonna wait til an updated, more advance and hopefully more affordable full frame D-SLR comes out.


----------



## Decreate (Nov 15, 2007)

For some weird reason I seem to be more interested in the ID Mk III with its 1.3 crop factor....if it wasn't for the focusing issues the first batch was experiencing, I would have most probably already got one...


----------



## Azyiu (Nov 15, 2007)

Indeed, the 1D class and for sure the 1Ds class are NICE. Then again, there are lot of features and functions in those cameras that I know I won't be using, if at all... besides, their price tags are just out of my range right now.  Well, it would be super cool to own the 1Ds Mk III for no reasons at all though.


----------



## Decreate (Nov 16, 2007)

I'm sure the 1Ds MkIII is a great piece of gear but its just something that I can't afford...so I guess I'll just wait until the ID Mk III problems gets fixed up...


----------



## Azyiu (Nov 19, 2007)

An update on that piece of crap lens.

I was told by Canon it is either the motor or another piece of thing (not sure what it is called at all) broke. Either way, the repair cost is somewhere between USD $65 and $110.  Simply put, this lens is just NOT worth a third repair and I am just going to keep it without the auto focusing...  

I think I am almost a 100% positive on buying the EF 17-40mm L f/4 next.


----------

