You last visited: Today at 01:22 PM
|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|05-24-2013 12:32 PM|
|05-24-2013 07:36 AM|
My lens just came in the mail too. In initially trying it out, it took 2 seconds to focus. Even when the object was already close to in focus. Admittedly, this was indoors with the shutters closed (so fairly low light), but this still seemed like too long. I'll have to try again outdoors when I have time.
So I suspect my copy is having auto-focus problems. Thoughts? Is it best to get Buydig to replace it or to talk directly to Canon?
|05-23-2013 04:22 PM|
|05-23-2013 06:30 AM|
|msf||Ive never heard of a lens giving you a grainy picture, are you on auto and did the camera choose a high iso for some reason?|
|05-23-2013 03:59 AM|
|deals2dream||i got this les and used on my t4i..pictures are grainy not sharp. am i doing anything wrong?|
|05-20-2013 10:11 AM|
|deals2dream||is this deal dead?|
|05-20-2013 03:50 AM|
I've owned the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM for a few years now with APS-C crop cameras. I don't use this lens very much. Besides being a bit long for indoor use, the times that you would use the f/1.8 aperture, the depth of field is so thin that it's very tricky to get the right part of the subject's face in focus
The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM stays on my EOS 7D most of the time. For wildlife, I use the 100-400L. For architecture, I use the EF-S 10-22. My 100mm macro doesn't get much use, either.
If you do want to buy this lens, keep an eye on the Canon refurbished lenses available here:
Here's an example that I shot with the 85mm at f/1.8 on an EOS 40D. Note that I got only part of one fish in focus and there's a trace of purple fringing (chromatic aberration).
|05-20-2013 12:13 AM|
I am STILL an amateur photographer, and was even a bigger one 6 years ago. Luckily for me, i started out on a sony and was able to "buy and test" out all different kinds of lens for dirt cheap because of the minolta lens. I see a lot of people asking, "is this a lens that is worth adding". Imo, any lens is worth adding to your collection. However, the main question is "would you carry this all day while on vacation/ traveling etc." "should i replace my stock 18-55, 18-135, or any zoom lens"
The answer is simply "no".
When your on vacation/sightseeing/indoors at a wedding, you WILL, i repeat WILL need zoom. a fixed prime lens will NOT be good enough and "fast" enough. Noone will like to wait 20 secs for you to walk like 50 steps back because you're simply too "close". Once you've reached the perfect place, guess what. Another friend/person just got into the group picture, and now you're forced to walk even further. You have this "nice/big/expensive" camera, so they expect your pictures to come out great like a professional. If you are only getting half of a face of someone, they're gonna ask you for the pic that you took, and you won't be able to give it to them. You get sad, then they get sad.
Just remember when you're indoors "you can always walker closer, but you cannot always walk farther". There are walls, chairs, other objects that does not allow you to walk back any farther. the 50mm 1.4 is your best bang for the buck imo. Just know that this lens is great because of how fast it is (the low aperture). and if you are one of the people that are going to buy the lens for "this is great for my kids basketball game since i can get brighter pictures", then look into the sigma 70-200 f2.8. If you were like me before, you will spend MORE time changing lens than taking actual photos. It gets old really quick. People who don't know photographer might think "this guy is a professional, he's changing lens every sec". What he doesn't know is that you actually don't have the right lens, and which is why you're changing lens so much instead of being able to stick with one.
What is this used for? If you are thinking of buying this lens, do yourself a favor because if you "think" its a good deal and have no special purposes (people who are buying because they have a special use), this lens will simply sit at home (not even in your bag) and you'll regret "why did i buy this lens". If you're an amateur and want to buy a great lens for a cheap price. Look into the sigma 24-70 f2.8 (non hsm) from ebay. You can probably get one for about $350 range (used of course). Yes, i know the canon L lens 24-70 2.8 is much sharper and focus better in low light, but it is also a $1200 (used). if you do not have this lens, 50mm 1.4, and a flash, this will NOT make you a better photographer. This should NOT be one of the first lens you buy in addition to your stock lens.
|05-19-2013 11:59 PM|
On a full frame body its more useable for full body.
I have this lens and its one of my favorites for its reach and speed, plus it can focus really fast. Ive used it for sports but I did have to do some cropping.
|05-19-2013 09:25 PM|
|05-19-2013 08:22 PM|
Alternatively, you can find the 24-105mm f/4L for 750 without having to look too hard. And that would be new.
Then you have the 15-85 which I have suggested for around $550 or so...
|05-19-2013 08:19 PM|
In long... you are comparing apples to oranges. The 17-85 is better than the 18-55 because it is quieter and faster than the 18-55, but image quality is still just marginally better.
I'd suggest getting a zoom, because I really don't think you know what you are getting into when it comes to a large aperture fixed focal length lens.
Here's an Amazon review... it seems to be what I presume to be a fair analysis of it.
Some expensive purchases grow on you: the more you use them the more you like them. My Canon 20D (and presumably the new 30D) is like that. This lens is not.
These comments update a review I wrote a year ago and have deleted, reflecting 12 months of experience with the lens:
From August 7, 2005:
I've been using film SLRs for thirty years, and over the last three years have owned two digital cameras (a point-and shoot and a Dimage Z3) in addition to the 20D that I bought two weeks ago and to which this lens is attached. In the last two weeks I've taken about 300 photos with this lens.
It seems to be a bit over-hyped. Don't get me wrong - it's a fine instrument: autofocus works quickly and quietly and the lens is fairly versatile. It appears sturdy and well-built. There's a little vignetting at 17mm, but mainly in the very corners of the image and I don't consider it a problem.
But the lens is slow, and that limits your ability to manage depth-of-field. And although the image stabilization system helps a lot, of course it doesn't help if the problem is a moving subject. If you plan to photograph moving subjects in anything other than bright light you should try the lens before you buy it. I'm not convinced it's worth the money. The camera is GREAT but, considering the price, the lens just doesn't quite get there.
One-year update (September 9, 2006):
If you're really serious about your photographs this lens is likely to be a disappointment. The 20D is too good a camera for this lens.
The vignetting at wide angles is more of a problem than I initially thought. Sometimes it's so bad that even Photoshop CS2 can't remove it, and I have to crop the images severely. And cropped and enlarged images really bring out the lack of sharpness in images from this lens. If I had it to do over again I'd buy the cheap 50mm 1.8 (sharper than this lens) and spend more money on a better zoom or tele or wide angle.
The lens is very good for snapshots and as a walking-around lens. It can help you take some fine photographs. It's very versatile, and with the 1.6 crop sensor in the 20D, some wide-angle help is needed - that's the value here. You can take a LOT of good pictures with this lens. But if you're going to spend the money on a high-end DSLR, you should also get good processing software, a good photo printer, and lenses that don't unnecessarily limit your results. One good thing about this lens: it's versatile, and keeping it on the camera helps you avoid getting dust on the sensor, which can happen every time you change lenses.
|05-19-2013 08:16 PM|
|blackzarg||I love this lens on crop bodies! Good price.|
|05-19-2013 07:48 PM|
|05-19-2013 07:31 PM|
|deals2dream||Does EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is better lens than this 85mm? one persona is willing to sell brand new one for $330 shipped? any suggestions|
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|