JuzaPhoto uses technical cookies and third-part cookies to provide the service and to make possible login, choice of background color and other settings (click here for more info).
By continuing to browse the site you confirm that you accept the use of cookies and that you have read and accepted the Terms of service and Privacy.
Do you want add your opinion? You do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments, join discussions and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 176000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
Cons:There's better around, not bright, little sharpness, aperture-related problems
Opinion:I bought this lens as entry level when I bought the Canon 7d in 2013, I used it for about 1 year and a half before the aperture for (Error 01) Let me walk in the middle of an event.. Fortunately it was under warranty and I was repaired. Reading later here and there, suffers from the problem at the diaphragm, so before a possible purchase valued well. However for what it costs is an average lens, useful as a handyman, obviously a little dark having F4 only at 17mm, I would recommend the purchase, but only on the new, for the used make sure of the problem "diaphragm".
Cons:Not very bright, not as clear as more expensive lenses (17-55 2.8 etc)
Opinion:Lens often mistreated for no reason: it does its job and does not have many equivalents, certainly is better than the plastic bags included in the kits from Canon.rnWhen it came out was a must for those who wanted a handyman APS-C.rnLeggera, robust, with wide excursion. Stabilization very good.rnThe real drawback, but it is common to this type of lens, is the brightness is not exceptional - but we are talking about a 5X zoom, it is difficult to find better around and in any case not spending the ridiculous figures (about 200 eur ) which is around now.rnIt 'crisp and bright as the 17-55 IS USM 2.8? Obviously * no *, but it costs less than a third ... rnrnBottom line: never regretted the purchase. Perfect all-round lens for what to do and what it costs. If you find it at a good price, take it with your eyes closed.
Opinion:The lens I used most on apsc (40d) is undoubtedly comfortable, a definitely better handset than the unbeaten 18-55 had with the 1000d but I was never satisfied with the yield. Slightly resolving already on the 10MP of the 40d (which was in the kit), I can only imagine the yield on denser sensors. Dark, not so much as self-opening (after all they are compromised with the focal excursion) as much as light collected, 2/3 of the stop less, which in some cases make the difference. The distortion is only visible at 17mm, correctable in post and predictable so no account as a counter, even as already between 20 and 24mm disappears. Another story is the color aberrations, evident and not always correctable via software. Stabilization is effective and useful in some cases, especially at long focal lengths. Autofocus is fast and silent but works well only in good light conditions, but becomes terribly inaccurate as it passes in the shadows and unfortunately alsoHitting it by selecting the center point and looking for the highest contrast points is not always effective, preventing the click and continuing to move the fire back and forth trying to confirm. I have never had any problems with the diaphragm cable, but given the amount of users who have had such a problem, I can only cite it. It is a lens with which it is more than ever the photographer that the optician to pull out good shots and seeing the price he is using is definitely a beneficial purchase in certain respects if you need those millimeters more than To standard 18-55 on a low-density sensor without high expectations. For the rest, I do not feel comfortable with it, considering the valid alternatives for both Canon and third-party phones.
Opinion:honest aim to produce good pictures. Snubbed at first, accomplices the many negative reviews even from those who do not even try, I bought the recommended (in its place) 18-55 IS. After a year, disappointed by the results (cold photo, low contrast, often unclear and / or incorrect focusing) are passed to 17-85. Immediately catch the eye good construction, the zoom range of a true all-rounder, and fast and precise focusing USM. The photo quality is generally higher than the 18-55 IS especially for the color rendering and contrast. As for the sharpness from the best of around f / 8 24mm, improving as you focal salt. Disappointing quality around 17mm, distortion and aberrations (correctable) and sharpness just sufficiente.rnInsomma lens which gave me much satisfaction and that I recommend to people who want a decent all-rounder at a modest price.
Pros:zoom range, good stabilization and accurate and fast autofocus
Cons:color aberration, distortion and vignetting obvious. good construction, but over time the barrel comes loose and drifting alone when turned upside down.
Opinion:Back in 2008, at the time of the EOS 400D was a must and a great alternative to a 18-55 allora.rnSi were good deals on used, my copy was very sharp and gave me good photos, provided you fix raw color-fringe obvious and excessive distortion 17mm.rnL'ho also used on the 70D, but I preferred to sell it to move on anyway opinion materiale.rnRimango after 8 years if taken at a good price, it is a great all-rounder!
The sample photos are selected automatically between all photos posted by JuzaPhoto members, using the camera and the lens selected in the techs. If you find evident errors (e.g. photos taken with cameras and lenses that are not available yet), you can contribute to improve the page by sending a private message to the user that has entered incorrect values in the photo caption.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
![[editors pick]](shared_files/layout/ep_badge.jpg){kind=icon}
