 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / October 2006Sharpest Canon 1.6 crop lens
Ok forget build quality...forget focus luxuries...forget super wide open apertures. What is the best IQ standard zoom when stopped down from between f8 to f16. This includes edge to edge sharpness, contrast and colour. The best image blown up to large print size. This is all regardless of available light and wether it's hand held or not. In fact lets say it's on a tripod to be sure. Not super wide but lenses that could be regarded as walk arounds. Lets add bang for buck marks as well. And the contenders are (in no specific order): 1. Canon 17-85 IS 2. Canon 17-40 L 3. Sigma 17-70 2.8/4.5 4. Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC 5. Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 I won't include the up and coming Tokina. Apoligies if I missed something. Let the contest begin! Sie > Ok forget build quality...forget focus luxuries...forget super wide open > apertures. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Sie Look at here: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html Br. Jukka > Ok forget build quality...forget focus luxuries...forget super wide open apertures. > > What is the best IQ standard zoom when stopped down from between f8 to f16. This includes edge to edge sharpness, contrast and colour. The best image blown up to large print size. This is all regardless of available light and wether it's hand held or not. In fact lets say it's on a tripod to be sure. > Not super wide but lenses that could be regarded as walk arounds. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 1. Canon 17-85 IS > 2. Canon 17-40 L I have a Canon 17-40 L and it is sharp as a tack, it is my stay on the camera lens. I have samples of the 17-85IS and it is nowhere near as sharp. The others I do not have and have no wish of trying. Jean > 3. Sigma 17-70 2.8/4.5 > 4. Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sie >> Ok forget build quality...forget focus luxuries...forget super wide open > apertures. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > camera lens. I have samples of the 17-85IS and it is nowhere near as > sharp. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ now, now...you're overreacting just a bit, don't you? It's not like biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig difference as you say. It is, sure. But not THAT big. but then again, comparing the two would be unfair, since only one is L >>> And the contenders are (in no specific order): >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It's not like biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig difference as > you say. It is, sure. But not THAT big. I own the 17-40 L plus I've used the 17-85 IS and it's not an exaggeration, there is a big difference. You can't use the 17-85 wide open, and even when stopped down to improve sharpness, it still lacks contrast and it has nasty CA at the wide end. The 17-85 is a poor performer for the price. It has the advantage of IS and a wide zoom range for convenience, but that's it. Optically it's nothing to get excited about, and the cheap $100 18-55 kit lense is about as good as the 17-85. For the price, I'd rather spend the money on the 17-40 L that has great performance - it's one of the best deals available from Canon. Sure it lacks the range of some others, but what you lose in zoom range you gain in image quality. > but then again, comparing the two would be unfair, since only one is > L But the comparison here is based on price, and it's somewhat fair because even with the price drop on the 17-85 they are still in the same range along with the other three that were mentioned. The 17-40 L can be found for about $150 more over the 17-85 and it's well the extra money. >>>> And the contenders are (in no specific order): >>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > along with the other three that were mentioned. The 17-40 L can be found > for about $150 more over the 17-85 and it's well the extra money. with one difference...that 17-85 has IS and 17-40 has not. Note that 17-85 without IS would come ---say about 200 $ tops. The main question is however how much do you really need IS at that modest zoom. While i found IS at 70-300 IS a must (since i shoot from hand only), here is not that a nuisance. But bigger minus is short coverage. I've shot a few times with my 17-85 now and it's range usefulness is just great. That barrel distortion is easily corrected on a PC, and also CA in a great deal. The main point here is that i have no problem doing this, while someone with hundred's of shots per day would die before correcting each and everyone photo he/she makes. Also sharpness can be somewhat gained by, say, unsharp mask. It's a good thing for what it's ment. But definitely NOT for pro's. I've read several reviews, from good to bad, and found out that all bad were compared to pro lenses, while all good were estimated as "very good for the price" so not as a comparison with pro lens, but rather a relative conclusion. I admit, i did look at 24-105 lens, but....not just yet. I also looked to new 70-200 IS f4, but...again not yet--- > > You can't use the 17-85 wide > > open, and even when stopped down to improve sharpness, it still lacks [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > lenses, while all good were estimated as "very good for the price" so not as > a comparison with pro lens, but rather a relative conclusion. Not comparing to more expensive lenses, the cheaper 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS is better than the more expensive 17-85/4-5.6 IS, plus that covers full frame. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr >> > You can't use the 17-85 wide >> > open, and even when stopped down to improve sharpness, it still lacks [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr good one...only wide end could be a bit wider... >> Ok forget build quality...forget focus luxuries...forget super wide open >apertures. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >I have a Canon 17-40 L and it is sharp as a tack, it is my stay on the >camera lens. Not on the edge, unless you really stop it down. http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694 >>> Ok forget build quality...forget focus luxuries...forget super wide open >>apertures. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Not on the edge, unless you really stop it down. > http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694 that's what i meant...people (who own it) just like to exagerrate a bit... > "RichA" <me@me.com> wrote in message >>>> And the contenders are (in no specific order): [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > that's what i meant...people (who own it) just like to exagerrate a > bit... It's not an exaggeration at all. The lense is well known to be that good, and my own experience with it agrees with the general consensus. You're free to believe what you want, but believing RichA is like believing that Superman is real - it's all in a fantasy world. For some background - Rich is well known in these groups as a troll and a questionable source of information and/or facts. He doesn't own the equipment he claims to have "tested" nor is there any evidence that he even owns a camera, let alone a DSLR. Now for the facts - the image Rich posted is of questionable origin. The reason it's questioned is three-fold: 1 - The image sucks for a 17-40 which I know performs much better. 2 - The image size is wrong for the 30D - original size is 4368x2912 which is the 5D file size at 12.7 megapixels (30D is 3504x2336 8.2mp). 3 - There is no exif data and we have no idea if the image was processed or not. And finally, here's a link to a comparison of the 17-40 and 16-35 lenses from Canon. The results agree with my own personal experience: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml You may wish to do yourself a favour and question anything Rich has to say. Personally, I filter his posts so I don't have to see his trolling drivel. >> "RichA" <me@me.com> wrote in message >>>>> And the contenders are (in no specific order): [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > say. Personally, I filter his posts so I don't have to see his trolling > drivel. ok...as i said, surely lens must be better, since first, it's L, and second, it's expensive... just leave me some benefits as long i have a cheaper one... :-)) BTW...i hope that by the time i'll have cash for better lens they'll put out something in similar range like 17-85. I love this range...it's wide, and on the other hand has quite a zoom. having two lenses instead of one can be annoying, as come the time when i would have to change very often... Ok, one option is 24-105, but it lacks some wide end, though...maybe some 10-22 would be needed in this case... what would you say about 24-105 lens ? It's an L lens, and have IS, which i found very usefull. > ok...as i said, surely lens must be better, since first, it's L, and > second, it's expensive... just leave me some benefits as long i have > a cheaper one... :-)) Like I said before, it does have the benefit of a wide zoom range and image stabilization which makes it a convenient lense for walking around. I would like it better if it was sharper. > BTW...i hope that by the time i'll have cash for better lens they'll > put out something in similar range like 17-85. I love this [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > what would you say about 24-105 lens ? It's an L lens, and have IS, > which i found very usefull. The 24-105 is another well regarded lense and should perform well, but I don't have much experience with it. And it's not my first choice as it's not wide enough for a cropped FOV camera. Canon doesn't currently make a good 18-70 or similar lense like the Nikon, and that's a shame. The 24-105 also has IS which unfortunately pushes the price up into the 24-70 f/2.8 range which is faster and better (although heavier). This is just my opinion, but Canon needs to make a good consumer "kit" lense that performs well for a reasonable price. That means something without IS and covers a decent walk around range like the 17-85. Nikon just came out with a new 18-135 that looks like it'll be a good performer for a lot less than the Canon. Add the 18-200 VR and 18-70 into the mix and that's three Nikon lenses that blow away what Canon offers. Canon needs to catch up...I think they've been spending too much time on the bodies and not enough with the lenses. But then perhaps that's their design criteria. If I was a consumer buying from scratch, I'd go with Nikon without hesitation. They have the better body and better "kit" lenses. But that's just me. >> ok...as i said, surely lens must be better, since first, it's L, and >> second, it's expensive... just leave me some benefits as long i have a [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > hesitation. They have the better body and better "kit" lenses. But that's > just me. I only hope that in time they will make some other models... Or maybe i'll look into sigma or tokina range...at last, in that range i guess i could live without IS... > This is just my opinion, but Canon needs to make a good consumer "kit" > lense that performs well for a reasonable price. That means something [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > into the mix and that's three Nikon lenses that blow away what Canon > offers. Canon needs to catch up... Maybe Canon is planning to switch to full frame soon and is not investing in EF-S, while Nikon plans to stay with DX for a long time. For EF, Canon has a lot of variable aperture normal zooms: 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS 24-85/3.5-4.5 28-105/3.5-4.5 ... http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr > Ok, one > option is 24-105, but it lacks some wide end, though...maybe some 10-22 > would be needed in this case... > what would you say about 24-105 lens ? It's an L lens, and have IS, which i > found very usefull. You can try 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS first, and then 24-70/2.8. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr > >> "RichA" <me@me.com> wrote in message > >>>>> And the contenders are (in no specific order): [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > what would you say about 24-105 lens ? It's an L lens, and have IS, which i > found very usefull. If these wide, fast zooms were really any good, you wouldn't have Canon FF owners as the main buyers of high end prime glass, which they are. The image you saw was on a crop frame 30D. Imagine what it would have looked like (at the edge) with a 5D. > > "RichA" <me@me.com> wrote in message > >>>> And the contenders are (in no specific order): [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > 2 - The image size is wrong for the 30D - original size is 4368x2912 > which is the 5D file size at 12.7 megapixels (30D is 3504x2336 8.2mp). I shot with a 30D and a Nikon D200 at the same time. First 30D I'd seen in Toronto. It wasn't a 5D. No processing other than an increase in brightness. > 3 - There is no exif data and we have no idea if the image was > processed or not. > And finally, here's a link to a comparison of the 17-40 and 16-35 > lenses from Canon. The results agree with my own personal experience: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > say. Personally, I filter his posts so I don't have to see his > trolling drivel. All I did was post the image. If you'll note the central contrast, aberration control and sharpness are fine, unlike the edge. The lens was stopped down but only slightly. >> > "RichA" <me@me.com> wrote in message >> >>>> And the contenders are (in no specific order): [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >seen in Toronto. >It wasn't a 5D. No processing other than an increase in brightness. And yet one post earlier you claimed.... >The image you saw was on a crop frame 30D. Imagine what it would have >looked like (at the edge) with a 5D. You'll be a lot more credible if you pick a story and stick to it. TR >>> >> Not on the edge, unless you really stop it down. >>> >> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>seen in Toronto. >>It wasn't a 5D. No processing other than an increase in brightness. OMG...this ought to be good for a laugh... RichA, please explain to everyone the discrepancy in the pixel count. Then after fumbling for an excuse with that, please explain the 6MB file size from a Canon 30D jpg which is typically a lot smaller at about 3.5MB in size. And for some more fun, have a look at this image from your own page: http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57655520 Notice how it _CLAIMS_ to be a crop from a 30D, yet the accompanying info and exif both state it's from a 5D. Can you _BE_ any more stupid? I think you can...c'mon, you can do it. >><Come@quickly.com> a écrit dans le message de >>> Ok forget build quality...forget focus luxuries...forget super wide open >>apertures. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Not on the edge, unless you really stop it down. >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694 Yeah, a quick low-light snap in a phot store is supposed to impress people as being a meaningful test. Try again, troll. I've actually shot hundreds of pictures with the lens. It's a good lens.  SignatureRay Fischer rfischer@sonic.net > Ok forget build quality...forget focus luxuries...forget super wide open apertures. > > What is the best IQ standard zoom when stopped down from between f8 to f16. This includes edge to edge sharpness, contrast and colour. The best image blown up to large print size. This is all regardless of available light and wether it's hand held or not. In fact lets say it's on a tripod to be sure. > > Not super wide but lenses that could be regarded as walk arounds. Canon 17-55/2.8 IS Canon 24-70/2.8 http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.