Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, should I get it?

[silkdiver]

I have the opportunity to purchase this lens for $280. I am thinking of having this as my "walk around" lens for the 50D I am picking up tomorrow. I already have the nifty fifty. What do you think, is it worth it for the price? ( I have read differing reviews on the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM) It is also about all I have left in my budget for the near future.

[Bercy]

If the lens is in excellent condition it would make quite an acceptable purchase. Given the cost new it is a very reasonable discount. Make sure you test it out thoroghly first, making sure it there is no evidence of physical trauma or that it has been treated like a work horse. Its a pretty safe option for a walk around, being light and reasonably compact. I'd buy it.

[dredi1975]

few of my friends have it and they are quite hapy with its performance, but they complain about one thing: it hasnt got a lock button to stop lens extending itself to full zoom while walking.

[grauniad]

I bought a second-hand one in perfect condition for $400 to use on my 450D and I've been completely happy with it. See http://www.flickr.com/photos/r_topor/tags/canonefs1785mmf456isusm/ for shots I've taken with it. It has its limitations of course, but a good copy for $280 is a bargain.
Rodney

[unistudent1962]

I bought a second-hand one in perfect condition for $400. It has its limitations of course, but a good copy for $280 is a bargain.
Rodney

I bought one last Xmas secondhand for about $400 with CPL, UV and hood. I have found it to be a nice sharp lens. It suffers from a bit of CA, but this is easily corrected in PS5.

Make sure you check it out well.

[Tricky]

The lens has its limitations (barrel distortion at 17mm, CA, not particularly sharp), but for $280 it's pretty good value. The 18-55 IS would come close optically (worse build quality), for about 1/3 rd the cost... either way, I think you'll end up wanting an upgrade when funds allow.

[Roosta]

Mine sits in my bag and collects dust, I brought the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8, it kills the Canon, $399.00 Aussie lens, brought at my local Pro shop here in WA. Well worth it, All sigma products will be price matched by CR Kennedy in Australia, competeing against DWI and the like, well worth looking at, new lens, brought in OZ.. :th3:

[JM Tran]

I wouldnt waste money on this lens, the canon 18-55 IS is actually better optically for sharpness and contrast and colours

the 17-85 is literally one of the worst APSC lenses to suffer from barrel distortion, it does an ok job at everything as its a very useful range with 2 stops of IS for the 1st generation of IS for Canon and very good build quality, but apart from that - its not a popular lens that anyone semi-serious about photography would consider.

[aslro]

This lens was my first lens and sold it after 2 months.

Shooting on the day is fine and it is real terrible when the sun go down.

Picked up Canon 17-55 and it is a lot better.

Recently bought another 17-50 Sigma for my 2nd body and the performance is not bad.

[grauniad]

The 17-55 is about $1000 more expensive than the 17-85; it ought to be a lot better!