Wide-angle to Zoom Photos with the Canon 17-85mm EF-S Lens

[Philip Colmer]

<img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/colmer-canonlens-front.jpg" /><br /><br /><b>Product Category:</b> Lens<br /><b>Manufacturer:</b> <a href="http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=10511">Canon, Inc</a><br /><b>Where to Buy:</b> <a href ="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=jasondunn-20&path=tg/detail/-/B0002Y5WXO/ref=ase_jasondunn-20?v=glance&s=photo" target="_blank">Amazon</a> [Affiliate]<br /><b>Price:</b> $599.99<br /><b>System Requirements:</b> Canon digital camera with EF-S mount<br /><b>Specifications:</b> 17-85mm, f4-5.6, lens construction is 17 elements in 12 groups, diagonal angle of view is 78° 30' - 18° 25', closest focusing distance is 0.35m/1.15ft, filter size is 67mm, dimensions are 3.1"(d) x 3.6"(l) or 78.5mm x 92mm, weight is 16.8oz or 475g.<br /><br /><b>Pros:</b><li>Good wide-angle to zoom range;<br /><li>Image stabilisation;<br /><li>Fast, quiet auto-focussing.<b>Cons:</b><ul><li>Cost.</ul><b>Summary:</b><br />If you've got a digital camera with an EF-S mount and you're looking for a single lens that has a good range for general, walkabout use, this is definitely one to consider.<br /><br />Read on for the full review!<!><br /><PAGEBREAK><br /> <br /><span><b>Changing Lenses</b></span><br />One of the advantages of the SLR design is removable lenses, allowing you to change the capabilities of the camera from tight close-up work to paparazzi super-snoop shots. This does, unfortunately, require you to carry more lenses and spend more money, which might go some way to explaining why my wife only ever bought one lens to go with her Canon film camera - a very nice Tamron 28-200mm lens that wasn't too big but gave a reasonable range between wide angle and zoom.<br /><br />Canon have been smart with their digital SLRs and retained compatibility with all of the EF-format lenses. The downside is that, because of the differences between the 35mm optics and the smaller digital optics, a traditional lens gets scaled by about 1.6. This turned my wife's Tamron lens into an effective 45-320mm lens - great at the zoom end of the scale but rather lacking at the near end. We soon found out that taking close shots of flowers was not going to work with the Tamron.<br /><br /><span><b>Enter the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Zoom Lens!</b></span><br />In order to compensate for the 1.6 magnification factor, Canon introduced a new format of lens - the EF-S lens. These lenses can only be used on compatible digital bodies such as the EOS 20D, 300D and 350D. Figure 1 shows the Tamron &amp; Canon lenses from the perspective of the end that goes into the camera body.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/colmer-canonlens-optics.JPG" /> <br /><i>Figure 1: Tamron &amp; Canon optics</i><br /><br />The 17-85mm lens reviewed here is equivalent to a 27-136mm lens on a 35mm camera and therefore restores the wide-angle range that we lost on the Tamron.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/colmer-canonlens-compare.JPG" /> <br /><i>Figure 2: Tamron 28-200mm and Canon EF-S 17-85mm</i><br /><br />Figure 2 shows the Tamron lens next to the Canon lens. As you can see, they are very similar in size, with the Canon lens being slightly longer and slightly fatter. The inclusion of image stabilisation is probably responsible for a lot of the size difference, but more on that later.<br /><br /><span><b>Lens Controls</b></span><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/colmer-canonlens-controls.JPG" /> <br /><i>Figure 3: Zoom and focus rings</i><br /><br />The outer ring on the lens controls the zoom factor, while the inner ring controls focussing. Canon state that the lens can be used in "macro" mode, where you effectively lock off the focus at the lower end, put the lens into manual focus and, according to the lens manual, move your body backwards and forwards to get the picture into focus. However, the EOS 20D doesn't have any indicator of whether or not the picture is in focus, so I found these instructions very difficult to follow. I tended, instead, to leave the lens on auto-focus, frame the photo as I liked and then adjust how close I was until the camera couldn't focus any more, and then back off slightly to let the auto-focus do its work.<br /><br />The end result is that you might not be able to get entirely the shot you are after, but the pixel resolution of the 20D means that you can crop the shot very nicely. Figure 4 is an extreme crop - if you click on the image, you might be surprised by the full photo :-).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/colmer-canonlens-notcloseup.jpg"><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/colmer-canonlens-closeup.jpg" /></a><br /><i>Figure 4: Extreme close-up. Click on the image to see the full picture (3.2MB)</i><br /><br />The control for switching between auto-focus and manual focus is found on the side of the lens, as you can see in Figure 5. If you have the lens set for auto-focus, it is still possible to use the focus ring to adjust the setting (although auto-focussing on the camera might then put that setting back). The Tamron lens, by comparison, complains quite audibly if you try to manually focus when the lens is on auto.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/colmer-canonlens-switches.JPG" /> <br /><i>Figure 5: Lens switches</i><br /><br />Below the AF/MF switch is the stabiliser option. When you turn on this feature, gyro-stabilisers inside the lens try to keep the image stable. This reduces camera shake to the equivalent of setting the shutter speed 3 f-stops lower than without IS turned on. There is a very slight noise when you are using the feature, but it isn't very loud. The camera is very clever about powering the feature - it turns on when you auto-focus and turns off a few seconds after the photo has been taken. Using the camera's battery to power IS will reduce the number of photos you can take.<br /><PAGEBREAK><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/colmer-canonlens-notstable.jpg" /> <br /><i>Figure 6: No image stabilisation</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/colmer-canonlens-stable.jpg" /> <br /><i>Figure 7: Image stabilisation turned on</i><br /><br />Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the effects of not having IS turned on, and then turning it on. The photos are closely cropped to highlight the effect. They were taken in a low light situation and with the camera hand-held. It should be realised, though, that image stabilisation can't fix a high degree of shake. For rock-solid photos, you can't beat a stable support like a tripod.<br /><br /><span><b>The Lens in Use</b></span><br />Figures 8-10 provide a good comparison between the Tamron (28-200mm) and Canon (17-85mm) lenses, at each end of the zoom scale. All four photos were taken with the camera on a tripod so that the positioning of the lens didn't change.<br /><br />The Canon lens delivers a good wide angle shot, restoring a lot of the image that was lost through the 1.6 magnification that now affects the Tamron. At the zoom end, the Canon does well if you don't like changing lenses too often. If you need to get a bit more zoom, a lens swap will be necessary.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/colmer-canonlens-out.jpg" /> <br /><i>Figure 8: Canon lens at wide angle setting</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/colmer-canonlens-zoomout.jpg" /> <br /><i>Figure 9: Tamron lens at wide angle setting</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/colmer-canonlens-in.jpg" /> <br /><i>Figure 10: Canon lens at zoom setting</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/colmer-canonlens-zoomin.jpg" /> <br /><i>Figure 11: Tamron lens at zoom setting</i><br /><br /><span><b>Conclusions</b></span><br />Although expensive, the 17-85mm EF-S lens offers a lot to the photographer who is looking for a good all-rounder. The use of image stabilisation will help in lowish light conditions when you don't have a tripod, or the time to set one up. Auto-focussing on the lens is fast and quiet. There is a lot of competition out there but this lens offers a 5x zoom range that is hard to beat.<br /><br /><i>Philip Colmer is an I.T. Manager for a global electronic publishing company. In his spare time, he enjoys researching his family history, developing his videography skills and going shopping with his wife.</i>

[Jason Dunn]

Cool, nice review. I'm thinking about a new lens for my camera and this looks like it might be a nice middle of the road choice!

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Nice user review. I always think they're more useful than shots of the ISO target chart.

I find this lens expensive and slow. f/4-5.6 lenses shouldn't cost this much. I suppose one can argue the optical quality is better, but then again, at f/4-5.6, the lens designers do have an easier job..

Things that'd be useful to see (and easy to test):

- Barrel distortion at about 10 metres
- Pincushion distortion at about 25 metres
- It was nice to see a close up sample, though a little more information on the magnification ratio would be useful (that's why you always see them rulers in them close up shots)

Contary to popular belief, chromatic aberration is not easy to test for, and resolution tests are just painful and time consuming.

However, the EOS 20D doesn't have any indicator of whether or not the picture is in focus,

Eh, there's no indicator in the viewfinder that blinks if it's in focus?

[Philip Colmer]

However, the EOS 20D doesn't have any indicator of whether or not the picture is in focus,
Eh, there's no indicator in the viewfinder that blinks if it's in focus?
This is where it gets interesting ... yes, there is an indicator in the viewfinder but it only works if the lens is set to auto-focus. If the lens is set to manual focus, it never lights. Since the manual for the lens says to use manual focus when using the macro capability, it means that the camera doesn't give you any indication of when you are in focus.

I'm somewhat curious as to why Canon say not to use auto-focus for macro mode. I tried it this morning and, by starting too close and working outwards, the camera easily focussed the shot without taking the lens out of the macro zone on the adjustment wheel.

Personally, though, I'm still struggling to fully appreciate the difference between a macro shot and a close-up shot :-).

--Philip

[Jason Dunn]

I find this lens expensive and slow. f/4-5.6 lenses shouldn't cost this much.

What lens would you reccomend then that's cheaper and faster? I'm looking for one. :-)

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

This is where it gets interesting ... yes, there is an indicator in the viewfinder but it only works if the lens is set to auto-focus. If the lens is set to manual focus, it never lights. Since the manual for the lens says to use manual focus when using the macro capability, it means that the camera doesn't give you any indication of when you are in focus.


Ah, well, I guess Canon felt that there wasn't a need to implement some kind of assist for photographers in manual mode. You're stuck focusing on the focusing screen.


I'm somewhat curious as to why Canon say not to use auto-focus for macro mode. I tried it this morning and, by starting too close and working outwards, the camera easily focussed the shot without taking the lens out of the macro zone on the adjustment wheel.


It's partly due to a few things, firstly in macro photography (1:1 or greater) changing the focus point will change the magnification ratio. Some don't want that, and thus use focusing rails (more expensive specialised photography equipment) to move the camera back and forth to focus. Another reason is that AF at that level is pig slow, and potentially inaccurate. I find with a good focusing screen and viewfinder and a well made lens I can focus faster than a Canon USM lens on that setting.


Personally, though, I'm still struggling to fully appreciate the difference between a macro shot and a close-up shot :-).


It's been a subject of much debate, but generally macro photography is done at 1:1 magnification ratios or greater.

[marlof]

Jason: you got a Digital Rebel, right? For the Canon DSLR range, this lens is about as expensive as the 17-40L 4.0, which would be my preferred lens in this price class. You'll lose quite a bit of range, as in 35mm terms you'd have a 28-65 lens, whereas the 17-85 Philip reviews would give you 28-135. If the range is good enough for you depends on your shooting style. It should be similar to the kit lens, but image quality of the 17-40L would be a lot better in that range. Less CA, and it's considered to be sharper, both compared to the 17-85 and most certainly compared to the 17-55. It is quite a bit heavier though, so you'd better train your neck muscles. :)

Another good candidate might also be the Sigma 18-50 DC 2.8, which is a stop faster than the 17-40. Not everybody is as enthousiastic about the Sigma lenses, but this one also got quite some positive reviews. Also Tamron has some quite affordable and decent 2.8 fast lenses. I don't feel the Sigma and Tamron are up to the 17-40 level in image quality though.

Anyhow: none of those alternative offer IS, so the 17-85 would be your only choice if you need that. That said: generally a shorter range should enable you to get a lot of shots without IS as well. An important asset of the 17-85 is its range though. If you shoot a lot in that complete range, it'd be hard to get a really good alternative in this price class. Not many good lenses combine both a good workable wide angle and a medium zoom range.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

What lens would you reccomend then that's cheaper and faster? I'm looking for one. :-)

Well, Nikon's 18-70 is one, but I guess you can't use that. Or the Nikkor 17-55/2.8. =P (but that won't be cheaper)

If you're feeling lucky, there's the Sigma 18-50/2.8. I've never tested it though, but it is cheaper and faster. Personally I think the optical quality shouldn't be too terrible, and it can't be worse than the 17-85, especially when you consider that lenses work better when stopped down, meaning at f/4-5.6 the Sigma has the potential to do better than the 17-85. Now if the lens does survive the first two years..

[marlof]

Nice user review. I always think they're more useful than shots of the ISO target chart.

So true: reading about a users experience with a lens like this beats measurabating with charts etc. There's a place for everything, and I like it that Digital Media Thoughts is a place for this kind of review. Good job, Philip!

[marlof]

Well, Nikon's 18-70 is one, but I guess you can't use that. Or the Nikkor 17-55/2.8. =P (but that won't be cheaper)

Hey. :) An another note: the 18-70 (added to the D70 price) is about EUR 250 here. The 17-55 is about EUR 1250 here. I'm currently considering getting a D70 (or Canon 20D), and still not sure if the extra speed and image quality is worht spending EUR 1000 on this lens. It would be my main lens in my preferred range though....

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

It really depends on your shooting style. For me a mid-range zoom is used for snapshots, so I won't pay so much for such a lens. For such lenses the premium is quite high; I'd say optically you're getting some 25-35% improvement over the 18-70, plus half to one-and-a-half stop faster apertures. The rest of what you'll be paying goes into the build quality and the fact that it's a top end Nikkor.

[marlof]

I've done some researching on what ends on the 28-200 on my 828 I've used most. That would be 28-50 (landscapes and street scenes) and 120-200 (zooming in in crowds and stuff like that). The range in between is hardly used. So I guess with a 17-55 and a 70-200 I'd have my preffered ranges covered pretty well. I might start of with the 18-70 first, and then go for the 17-55 if I keep enjoying my hobby as much as I do right now.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Well, you haven't tried anything wider than 28mm much, so that's something you might want to consider. Try a 12-24 from Nikon/Tokina/Sigma and see the difference a superwide makes. For me that's what I'd get instead. The 18-70 will be reserved for snapshots and goofing around.

[Philip Colmer]

However, the EOS 20D doesn't have any indicator of whether or not the picture is in focus,
Eh, there's no indicator in the viewfinder that blinks if it's in focus?
This is where it gets interesting ... yes, there is an indicator in the viewfinder but it only works if the lens is set to auto-focus. If the lens is set to manual focus, it never lights. Since the manual for the lens says to use manual focus when using the macro capability, it means that the camera doesn't give you any indication of when you are in focus.
Turns out I was wrong about this - the EOS 20D does turn on the focus indicator in manual mode. I was reviewing some of the features in the manual and came across that information - tried it out on the camera and it does jolly well work after all. Dunno why I thought it didn't :?.

The more I play with the 20D, the more I love it and we are getting some great shots with the new lens.

--Philip

[Bob12]

One of the hazards of some digitals - so many functions, some are easy to forget about. I keep my manual readily accessible at all times and browse through it occasionally to find "new" features.