Sharpest Canon 1.6 crop lens

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Co...@quickly.com

unread,
Sep 28, 2006, 11:02:49 AM9/28/06
to
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


Jukka Niskanen

unread,
Sep 29, 2006, 1:06:35 AM9/29/06
to

<Co...@quickly.com> wrote in message
news:S4KdnZTYK8i...@giganews.com...

Look at here: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

Br. Jukka


jean

unread,
Sep 29, 2006, 2:00:35 AM9/29/06
to

<Co...@quickly.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:S4KdnZTYK8i...@giganews.com...

> 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. 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

AaronW

unread,
Sep 29, 2006, 2:31:37 PM9/29/06
to
Co...@quickly.com wrote:
> 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

Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)

unread,
Sep 30, 2006, 6:59:20 AM9/30/06
to

"jean" <try...@find.it> wrote in message
news:6e2dncxnrOkdK4HY...@giganews.com...

>
> <Co...@quickly.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:S4KdnZTYK8i...@giganews.com...
>> 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. 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


Bill

unread,
Sep 30, 2006, 10:11:33 AM9/30/06
to
"Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" <protoHA...@bonbon.net> wrote in
message news:451e4e08$1...@x-privat.org...

>
>>> 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. 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.

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.


Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)

unread,
Sep 30, 2006, 11:22:58 AM9/30/06
to

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message
news:q9WdnQ76pr6I5oPY...@golden.net...
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---


RichA

unread,
Sep 30, 2006, 5:43:10 PM9/30/06
to
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 02:00:35 -0400, "jean" <try...@find.it> wrote:

>
><Co...@quickly.com> a écrit dans le message de
>news:S4KdnZTYK8i...@giganews.com...
>> 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

Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)

unread,
Oct 1, 2006, 4:54:32 AM10/1/06
to

"RichA" <m...@me.com> wrote in message
news:c4pth21lse92lm2to...@4ax.com...

that's what i meant...people (who own it) just like to exagerrate a bit...


Bill

unread,
Oct 1, 2006, 12:59:02 PM10/1/06
to
"Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" <protoHA...@bonbon.net> wrote in
message news:451f8248$1...@x-privat.org...

>
> "RichA" <m...@me.com> 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/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.


Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)

unread,
Oct 1, 2006, 1:59:59 PM10/1/06
to

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message
news:B8qdnf18s4tLboLY...@golden.net...
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.


Bill

unread,
Oct 1, 2006, 2:28:37 PM10/1/06
to
"Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" <protoHA...@bonbon.net> wrote in
message news:45200...@x-privat.org...

>
> 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.


Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)

unread,
Oct 1, 2006, 3:58:01 PM10/1/06
to

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message
news:HYKdnYjxX6xIlb3Y...@golden.net...
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...


AaronW

unread,
Oct 1, 2006, 10:43:15 PM10/1/06
to
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

AaronW

unread,
Oct 1, 2006, 10:48:50 PM10/1/06
to
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

RichA

unread,
Oct 1, 2006, 10:50:10 PM10/1/06
to

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/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.

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

unread,
Oct 1, 2006, 10:51:54 PM10/1/06
to

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.

AaronW

unread,
Oct 1, 2006, 10:58:02 PM10/1/06
to
Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:
> "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message
> news:q9WdnQ76pr6I5oPY...@golden.net...
> > 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

Ray Fischer

unread,
Oct 1, 2006, 11:32:15 PM10/1/06
to
RichA <m...@me.com> wrote:
> "jean" <try...@find.it> wrote:
>><Co...@quickly.com> 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
rfis...@sonic.net

Tom Ross

unread,
Oct 2, 2006, 1:31:57 AM10/2/06
to

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


Bill

unread,
Oct 2, 2006, 10:06:49 AM10/2/06
to
"Tom Ross" <TRoss-...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:0i81i2tb9i7glbfs1...@4ax.com...

> On 1 Oct 2006 19:50:10 -0700, "RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> >> Not on the edge, unless you really stop it down.
>>> >> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57631694
>>>
>>> Now for the facts - the image Rich posted is of questionable
>>> origin.
>>> The reason it's questioned is three-fold:
>>>
>>> 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.

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.


Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)

unread,
Oct 2, 2006, 2:26:17 PM10/2/06
to

"AaronW" <bj...@scn.org> wrote in message
news:1159757882.2...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
good one...only wide end could be a bit wider...


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages