Canon 9517A002 Best Prices!
 |
Canon 9517A002 Best Prices!.
Product: Canon 9517A002 Amazon Price: Too low to display Availability: In Stock |
Compare Prices on Canon 9517A002
Then you might believe getting a copy of the Canon EF 17-85 IS. If you have a Digital Rebel, XT, or 20D and have been shooting with a kit lens, this is one of the lenses that a lot of people purchase as their first upgrade. Some people unprejudiced engage it in position of the kit lens when they buy the camera body. It's an extremely current lens because the range and size are unbiased correct for taking anywhere. I personally debated getting this lens because I wasn't certain about the quality of the glass and my main anxiety was that it wasn't quickly enough for all occasions. One of the more frustrating things for me about the kit lens, as expansive as it was for such minimal cost, was that the aperture wasn't fixed. I found myself having to bump up the ISO to form up for the lack of an f-stop or two. For those who are current to photography, that basically means you have to compensate for the fact that the lens can't let enough light into the sensor so you have to manufacture the sensor more sensitive (but also at the cost of lower quality and more grainy results) with the higher ISO setting.
I decided I didn't want to consume that risk and went all out since it was supposed to be my walk-around lens that I'd carry all the time. I picked up the expensive EF 24-70 f/2.8L lens that so many pros employ because I notion it had a decent enough focal length range and at 2.8 it was quickly enough for all my lightning needs. It cost $1100 and after actually hanging it around my neck, I decided it wasn't going to work for my unique needs. The lens itself is relatively mammoth and weighs a ton on a 20D. I returned the lens after talking to a friend who is a professional photographer who basically recommended picking up the 17-85 IS. He owned both (among others) and said that it was perfect for walking around because it had both the wide kill and a decent telephoto length. That and it cost half as powerful! He allayed all my fears that the characterize quality wouldn't be very satisfactory. I was also going to be taking a whisk for a few weeks to Europe and really wanted a lens that could do it all. So I bought it and have been lovely delighted with my results.
Is it a pro lens? Not by any means. I know that if I kept the 24-70 the results would probably be better. But that being said, I am getting kindly results for half the ticket. When I was in Europe having the 17-85 range was about as perfect as I could have wanted. It was light and dinky enough that I could fit it into my compact Tamron Velocity 6 bag and the additional weight was negligible. The IS is a nice feature but don't assume that it makes up for the lack of aperture width. I tried to fool myself into thinking that when I bought the lens, but I examine now that having a fixed 2.8 is something you unprejudiced can't manufacture up with IS. But other than that, I'm very pleased with this select. Another lens you might want to sight into if you're checking this one out is the Canon EF 17-40 f/4. It's comparable in sign, has a fixed f/4 but unbiased doesn't have the additional zoom length to it. Pictures are mountainous though and it's also relatively compact. To learn more about this and other lenses, check out a position I made for Canon Digital SLR users at www.eosrebels.com. Hopefully you'll accept it valid in deciding which walkaround lens is fair for you.
I have been using this lens for a week and getting absolutely flawless pictures - no flares, fringing etc. I also did some semi-controlled tests with Image Stablizer and it works as advertised, resulting in grand sharper pics indoors. USM focusing works large too, and the lens is/feels well built.
One gripe - at $600, I would have liked it to reach with a hood ("sold" separately but not available yet) and a case (also "sold" separately) .
The valid inquire of IMO is not whether it's a enormous lens or not, but whether it's worth $600 as opposed to the kit lens (EF-S 18-55) + EF 28-135 IS. This combo is $100 cheaper and gives greater coverage on the telephoto kill. On the other hand, EF-S 17-85 lens claims to have better optics, circular aperture, convenience of a single workhorse lens and IS on the wide slay too.
Ultimately it's your call. My catch is that if you use $800 to $1500 on a digital SLR, you owe it to yourself to employ $600 on apt lenses (and another $200 on 420ex flash 
.
From a pure image quality standpoint, this lens will not please the pixel peepers. On the wide ruin of the zoom, which I personally exercise more often than the telephoto kill, this lens is not very animated, and it suffers from fairly poor distortion. Worse than that, for me, are the chromatic abberations; this lens is quite prone to indispensable CA when shot at the wide raze, which can witness a lot worse than a petite bit of distortion or softness. Given the effect of this lens, one should query a higher level of optical performance.
The maximum aperture of this lens is not very huge, being f/4 on the wide raze, and f/5.6 on the telephoto waste. The image stabilization makes up for this some, as you can comfortably shoot at mighty slower shutter speeds than otherwise, but, let's be objective here; this lens is a terrible performer if you want to shoot in improper light with no tripod. The puny aperture makes for a dismal viewfinder, which can be a very tremendous quandary if you are trying to create a narrate in the dismal (using a tripod) .
Yet, I calm gave this very sinister lens four stars, and this is not without reason.
First of all, the focal length range is quite handy. It isn't a mega-zoom that does everything, however, it covers the most often extinct focal length ranges, and is an appropriate lens to expend for the mountainous majority of situations. The dinky bit of extra zoom on the telephoto slay is handy on occasion, and it's also worth noting that the lens sharpens up quite a bit when you zoom in some - it might be soft on the wide extinguish, but zoomed in, it's quite marvelous.
I have printed as expansive as 20x30" using this lens on a Digital Rebel, and have no qualms with the results. Yes, there are sharper lenses out there, but you are a lot more likely to peek the disagreement in sharpness on your computer monitor than in a print.
This lens has ring USM, which enables it to focus very quietly, and very fast, whereas the slightly cheaper (and F2.8) options from the 3rd parties have normal focusing motors that are lifeless and noisy by comparison.
If you want to expend this lens indoors, you are best off getting a flash to go with it, such as a 430EX. The lens is usable in amazing indoor lighting, or during the day, but won't give you ample results in gross light with no flash.
If you will be shooting in lower light situations (people in particular), Tamron and Sigma have some respectable options in the 17-50mm range with F2.8 apertures, and I would recommend those lenses over this one. If you'd take the extra telephoto range, the image stabilization so you can shoot with smaller aperture in poorer lighting situations for greater depth of field (instead of needing to shoot a landscape at f/4, for instance, without image stabilization, you could exhaust f/11 on this lens, and obtain a challenging narrate with better depth of field. This is even more useful in the finish focus range - while this isn't a honest macro lens, if you win closeup photos without a tripod, you will want to close the lens down for greater depth of field, and the IS helps with that quite a bit.
Overall, I've been fairly delighted with the performance of this lens. If you like to distress about splitting hairs, and zooming all the arrangement in on pictures on your computer, this lens is likely to dissapoint you. If, however, you are willing to sacrifice optical perfection to earn a very well rounded, useful lens, then I'd recommend it, however, would also recommend that you reflect the 3rd party options, as they are also huge lenses, and do offer a somewhat better value.
