 |
 | 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 / February 2007Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS is amazing...
Never before have I had such accurate, fast, and hunt-free focus. This lens gets me the shots I need in exactly when I need them without turning other lights on just so that I can focus in low light. I now see why Canons need Canon lenses. Granted, they probably cripple the focusing when another lens is used, but still... The low-end Sigmas and Tamrons don't hold a candle in terms of actual usability of the autofocus.  SignaturePhil > Never before have I had such accurate, fast, and hunt-free focus. This lens > gets me the shots I need in exactly when I need them without turning other [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The low-end Sigmas and Tamrons don't hold a candle in terms of actual > usability of the autofocus. Yes, I have that lens, and it does what you say. It suffers somewhat from chromatic aberration at the short end , as well as some barrel distortion, but the focal range is pretty ideal for a walk-around lens, and if you process the raw images through DxO Optics, which straightens out the barrel distortion and corrects the CA, IMO the results are indistinguishable from L quality. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Yes, I have that lens, and it does what you say. It suffers somewhat > from chromatic aberration at the short end , as well as some barrel > distortion, but the focal range is pretty ideal for a walk-around > lens, and if you process the raw images through DxO Optics, which > straightens out the barrel distortion and corrects the CA, IMO the > results are indistinguishable from L quality. As a general rule of thumb, any lens that has to have its optical shortcomings corrected via software is being marketed to the wrong targeted audience and should be avoided at all costs. Combining the cost of the blob of glass and software you bought the L lens is more attractive and a better deal. Rita >> Yes, I have that lens, and it does what you say. It suffers somewhat >> from chromatic aberration at the short end , as well as some barrel [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Rita There isn't an L lens with the same zoom range as the 17-85, which I find is ideal for my purposes, and DxO does a hell of a lot more than just fixing CA and barrel or pincushion distortion. All zooms, L or not, show some degree of distortion, and I don't see why software correction is frowned on here. Further, DxO offers correction to all four of my lenses, and to replace each with an L version would cost more than my current setup and still not correct for various aberrations. Have you tried DxO for yourself? Trial version is free. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> Yes, I have that lens, and it does what you say. It suffers somewhat >> from chromatic aberration at the short end , as well as some barrel [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Rita What if the user doesn't care all that much in that respect? SignaturePhil >Never before have I had such accurate, fast, and hunt-free focus. This lens >gets me the shots I need in exactly when I need them without turning other >lights on just so that I can focus in low light. I now see why Canons need >Canon lenses. Which other lenses are you comparing the Canon 17-85mm to, and what comparative tests have you done? >> Never before have I had such accurate, fast, and hunt-free focus. >> This lens gets me the shots I need in exactly when I need them [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Which other lenses are you comparing the Canon 17-85mm to, and what > comparative tests have you done? Tamron 18-200, various other crap... No scientific tests, just observations. SignaturePhil > Never before have I had such accurate, fast, and hunt-free focus. This > lens gets me the shots I need in exactly when I need them [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The low-end Sigmas and Tamrons don't hold a candle in terms of actual > usability of the autofocus. Are you new to DSLRs? If so, then it's understandable why you sound so surprised. :) Actually, focus speed and accuracy has as much to do with the body as it does the lens--sometimes even more. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> Never before have I had such accurate, fast, and hunt-free focus. >> This lens gets me the shots I need in exactly when I need them [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Are you new to DSLRs? If so, then it's understandable why you sound > so surprised. :) Not really, but I'm new to the Canon/Canon combo. I hadn't been able to afford good glass (being a student and all) for a long time so I've been messing around with crappy lenses for way too long. > Actually, focus speed and accuracy has as much to do with the body as > it does the lens--sometimes even more. Well I'm willing to bet that it follows the law of diminishing returns... At least I can seen what these things were designed to do. SignaturePhil >>> Never before have I had such accurate, fast, and hunt-free focus. >>> This lens gets me the shots I need in exactly when I need them [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Well I'm willing to bet that it follows the law of diminishing > returns... At least I can seen what these things were designed to do. Example: Years ago, I had an early Canon Rebel (film). Later I bought an EOS 3, which has FAR superior focus sensitivity. I had a Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro at the time...which searched all over the place for focus (of a regular, non-macro scene) on the Rebel (I didn't really care about this for macro, since I always used manual focus for that). Then I stuck the lens on the EOS 3. The thing SNAPPED into focus, and did ZERO hunting/missing at all! The difference was entirely due to the superior sensitivity of the AF sensors in the EOS 3. :) -Mark² SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Never before have I had such accurate, fast, and hunt-free focus. This > lens gets me the shots I need in exactly when I need them without turning [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The low-end Sigmas and Tamrons don't hold a candle in terms of actual > usability of the autofocus. I agree and that lens is on my 20D most of the time. I do have one Sigma lens, and it occasionally fails to autofocus, occasionally produces Err99, and always focuses more slowly. >> Never before have I had such accurate, fast, and hunt-free focus. This >> lens gets me the shots I need in exactly when I need them [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Sigma lens, and it occasionally fails to autofocus, occasionally > produces Err99, and always focuses more slowly. Err99's make my heart stop, as that was the last thing my D60 did before all communication between lenses and the body stopped. The body worked fine with any lens at full open... I got pretty good at changing ISOs fast on that body... SignaturePhil Err99 on your Canon is telling you that you need to send your Sigma lens back to Sigma to have it re-chipped. As you know, Sigma does not pay the royalty to Canon for their mounts. Sigma reverse engineers their mounts to avoid royalty. When a new camera body comes out, you'll need to have Sigma 'update" it for you to work properly. I had an old 28-200 that needed it. No charge except for the shipping. Steve >> Never before have I had such accurate, fast, and hunt-free focus. This >> lens gets me the shots I need in exactly when I need them without turning [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > lens, and it occasionally fails to autofocus, occasionally produces Err99, > and always focuses more slowly. > Sigma reverse engineers their mounts to > avoid royalty Is this true? Or is it more a case of Canon not giving out the licenses? Are there any "official" third party lenses for Canon AF? SignatureAlan LeHun Tokina and Tamron make lenses for Canon equipment. I've never heard of any issues with those units with ERR99. >> Sigma reverse engineers their mounts to >> avoid royalty > > Is this true? Or is it more a case of Canon not giving out the licenses? > Are there any "official" third party lenses for Canon AF? > Never before have I had such accurate, fast, and hunt-free focus. This > lens [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The low-end Sigmas and Tamrons don't hold a candle in terms of actual > usability of the autofocus. And when you get curious about Canon's other offerings, you can always try before you buy http://www.rentglass.com/shop.aspx?type=Canon I have the 17-85IS, too, but I'm not as enthusiastic as you at the wide end. But is is a nice lens, I just want better. SignatureSlack > Never before have I had such accurate, fast, and hunt-free focus. This > lens gets me the shots I need in exactly when I need them without turning [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The low-end Sigmas and Tamrons don't hold a candle in terms of actual > usability of the autofocus. That is amazing, a more expensive lens is better than a cheaper lens. Gosh. >> Never before have I had such accurate, fast, and hunt-free focus. This >> lens gets me the shots I need in exactly when I need them [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That is amazing, a more expensive lens is better than a cheaper lens. > Gosh. You state that as if it's true. SignaturePhil >> Never before have I had such accurate, fast, and hunt-free focus. This >> lens gets me the shots I need in exactly when I need them [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That is amazing, a more expensive lens is better than a cheaper lens. > Gosh. Sorry, that should have read, "You state that as if it were universally true." SignaturePhil >>> Never before have I had such accurate, fast, and hunt-free focus. >>> This lens gets me the shots I need in exactly when I need them [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Sorry, that should have read, "You state that as if it were > universally true." Not universally...but usually true. :) There are notable exceptions--especially in sharpness. If you want SUPER sharp images on an ultra-cheapie budget, pick up the amazingly good Canon 50mm f1.8 for a mere $79 at www.bhphotovideo.com (or elsewhere). SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>> Never before have I had such accurate, fast, and hunt-free focus. >>>> This lens gets me the shots I need in exactly when I need them [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > amazingly good Canon 50mm f1.8 for a mere $79 at www.bhphotovideo.com > (or elsewhere). I did that several years ago, but the APS-C makes it too much of a portrait lens to be walk-around useful. SignaturePhil >>>>> Never before have I had such accurate, fast, and hunt-free focus. >>>>> This lens gets me the shots I need in exactly when I need them [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I did that several years ago, but the APS-C makes it too much of a > portrait lens to be walk-around useful. Yes, they should update and bring out a cheap 30mm F1.8 in AF-S. >Never before have I had such accurate, fast, and hunt-free focus. This lens >gets me the shots I need in exactly when I need them without turning other >lights on just so that I can focus in low light. I now see why Canons need >Canon lenses. Granted, they probably cripple the focusing when another lens >is used, but still... I also love this lens. (And you didn't even mention the value of IS.) But if you really want to see fast focusing and great low-light performance, try a fast prime lens. You'll never want to go back. -Joel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXIF data for any image or web page: http://exif.posted-online.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Never before have I had such accurate, fast, and hunt-free focus. >> This lens gets me the shots I need in exactly when I need them [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But if you really want to see fast focusing and great low-light > performance, try a fast prime lens. You'll never want to go back. The ubiquitous 50mm f/1.8 works pretty well, too. Works well for my budget macro shots with extension tubes. SignaturePhil >>>>> "Phil" == Phil, Non-Squid <REMOVEphilME_lee@hotmail.com> writes: Phil> Never before have I had such accurate, fast, and hunt-free focus. This Phil> lens gets me the shots I need in exactly when I need them without Phil> turning other lights on just so that I can focus in low light. I now Phil> see why Canons need Canon lenses. Granted, they probably cripple the Phil> focusing when another lens is used, but still... I've done a few projects with my 17-85 EF-S IS as well... great lens! It's now the "default" lens on my camera whenever I don't need something special. I shot about 500 pictures with it in the past week... see my recent flickr pictures at flickr.com/photos/randal-schwartz/ ... if the mm was less than 85, it was the 17-85. :) Anyone want to buy the kit lens? I don't need it any more. :) SignatureRandal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
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.