If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Sharpest Canon 1.6 crop lens
"Bill" wrote in message .. . "Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" wrote in message ... "RichA" wrote in message And the contenders are (in no specific order): 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. 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... 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/re...on-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. 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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Sharpest Canon 1.6 crop lens
"Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" wrote in
message ... 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 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. 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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Sharpest Canon 1.6 crop lens
"Bill" wrote in message .. . "Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" wrote in message ... 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 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. 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. 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... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Sharpest Canon 1.6 crop lens
Bill wrote:
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... 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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Sharpest Canon 1.6 crop lens
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Sharpest Canon 1.6 crop lens
Bill wrote: "Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" wrote in message ... "RichA" wrote in message And the contenders are (in no specific order): 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. 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... 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). 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: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...on-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. 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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Sharpest Canon 1.6 crop lens
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote: "Bill" wrote in message .. . "Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" wrote in message ... "RichA" wrote in message And the contenders are (in no specific order): 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. 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... 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/re...on-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. 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. 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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Sharpest Canon 1.6 crop lens
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message .. . 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. 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. 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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Sharpest Canon 1.6 crop lens
RichA wrote:
"jean" wrote: a écrit dans le message de 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 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 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. -- Ray Fischer |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Sharpest Canon 1.6 crop lens
On 1 Oct 2006 19:50:10 -0700, "RichA" wrote:
Bill wrote: "Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" wrote in message ... "RichA" wrote in message And the contenders are (in no specific order): 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. 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... 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). 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. 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon EF-S 17-85 (f/4-5.6 IS USM) opinions | Arild P. | Digital SLR Cameras | 11 | June 2nd 06 03:00 AM |
FS: Canon T90 + lots of FD lenses | aeiouy | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | January 11th 05 06:14 AM |
Q. What is the sharpest Canon lens? | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 227 | January 3rd 05 04:24 AM |
Nanofilm Ultra Clarity on Canon lens | Terry | Digital Photography | 11 | August 27th 04 07:08 PM |
For Sale Canon Powershot Adaptor and Wide Lens | For Sale | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | December 6th 03 07:54 AM |