Thats quite the difference in image quality between the 85 and the 17-85. As an owner of the 85 1.2, I know how sharp it is but a center crop at f8 should look better than than with the 17-85 I would really think.
Shooting both wide open or at larger apetures yes the prime is better but this is night and day differences were seeing here. My 135 f2 vs 28-135 didnt show that type of vast difference though I dont own a 17-85 as I have a 10D and 1D mkII but I would expect it similar to the 28-135.
Perhaps some corner crops would be intresting as well. If the 17-85 looks that bad in comparison at the center then the corners got to really be a huge difference ?
P.S.: I'd been thinking of getting a 17-85 S IS, but the comparison to the 85 1.2 L has convinced me to "cross it off the list"---------- That's an extreme difference in quality!
If the comparison of the 85 L and 17-85 shows what you can really expect from the 17-85 at 85/8, then this whole comparison is not very meaningful, because that makes the 17-85 pretty worthless.
mishas wrote:
If the comparison of the 85 L and 17-85 shows what you can really expect from the 17-85 at 85/8, then this whole comparison is not very meaningful, because that makes the 17-85 pretty worthless.
I would disagree! That was a very unfair comparison which I did - I compared a A$1000 consumer zoom lens with an A$3500 L-series prime which is acknowledged to be one of the sharpest that Canon makes. IOW one is a cheap general purpose lens, the other is an expensive specialized lens which isn't very versatile.
The 17-85 is not worthless. It has its place. I posted that comparison with the 85/1.2L just as a curiosity.
...not the same comparison, but you can produce the identical product in black and silver, the silver at a premium price. The guy with the black one might say the silver one is obviously a rip-off, and the guy with the silver .45 will pull it out and shoot him in thanks for the comment.
Its still a pretty big difference for f8 I think. Id expect a difference at larger apetures but at f8 even consumer zooms should be able to render pretty similar results.
I know at least my L zooms are as good as the primes stopped down a little bit, not wide open but by f4 or 5.6 they are really on par at 100% views. Stop a consumer lens down to f8 or f11 and it should still be as good as anything out there or at least pretty darn close.
My canon 28-105 for example was nearly on par with my 85 prime at f8. at 4.5 is was softer, at 5.6 it got alot better and give it one more full stop to f8 and its working great. Same held true for my 28-135. Very intresting results at anyrate
I had the 17-85 but exchanged it for the EF 24-70 f/2.8L. I still have the photos I took of the 17-85. Never owned the 17-40L , but considering it for WA. The quality of the EF-S 17-85 is not bad. I think the right side is the EF 17-85 ( assuming you used the 300D or the 20D). That's my WILD guess.
Well I voted..... Now I'm anxiously awaiting the results! I would "hope" that the A photos are the 17-40L. They seem to have more contrast and clarity (except the photo at f/5.6...). Thanks for the comparison.
Wren, If you already have the 24-70L, I'd recommend the 15mm FE lens for WA. It's a great combination! I use the Panorama Tools PS plugin to correct for FE distortion when needed.
Not much difference really.
It's not telling much, you need corner crops. My Tamron 17-35 was pretty sharp in the center, but really soft in the corners up to f16. I'm hoping for better performance from my future 17-40
The reason why I posted this test was to see how tangible the extra quality of the "L" is. When I saw the results myself I thought that the L was better but the 17-85IS is really damned close at 17mm. Then I started to wonder whether my opinion was influenced by my knowledge of which one the L-lens was. So I thought that I would post a poll to see how many other people could pick the difference.
This was not a test for the emperor's new clothes. If you saw no difference, then you saw no difference. If you thought the 17-85IS was better, then that's your opinion and I respect that. In some ways it is better.
In my own opinion, the A-series of images demonstrate better contrast at all apertures and marginally better detail at F/4 which starts to equalize at F/5.6.
I did this review with the intent of removing as much bias as possible. Everyone who voted was blinded to the origin of the image. So the voting was made based on what people actually saw and not based on preconcieved notions of what an image from an "L" lens would look like.
This poll was also posted in another forum which I visit. There is not much crossover between that forum and this one, and the results are the same. They identified the "L" by a ratio of 2.4 to 1. I announced the answer in that forum at the same time I announced the answer here.
Conclusion at 17mm the 17-85IS is very close in quality to the 17-40L. The difference is discernable in a direct comparison with poll respondents correctly identifying the L lens in a 2 to 1 ratio. Given that the 17-85IS is cheaper, lighter, offers a larger focal range, and has IS, I would have to declare it the winner in this shootout. I do believe the L to have superior image quality but the 17-85IS comes so close that you would not lose much by choosing it.
I was one of the "too close to call" folks - I preferred A slightly, in a couple of shots, but I wasn't sure which was which. And at some apertures, they were very, very close.
I would like to see some comparison of images near the edges and/or corners.
Thanks for doing this interesting and helpful test. Personally I think I will buy the 17-85 lens and then use DXO software with RAW converter to see if this improves the images.
Bill R
Keith, Thank you for the interesting test and a thoughtful conclusion. I have first bought for a 10D a 28-135IS, then a 17-40 and shortly a 17-85IS together with a 20D. Now the 17-85IS is what I use most. The corner sharpness of this lens at 17mm is a little worse than the 17-40 (visble only at 100% crop) but the focal length range and IS make it a clear winner for me. When you go out and shoot you just come back with more 'sharp' photos also thanks to IS.
If I need a FL between 40 and 85mm and with a 17-40 I have to shoot at 40mm and crop, then I loose much more quality. I can therefore live with a compromise at 17mm. Finally everything is a compromise. If we think we need to choose 17-40 due to its better corner sharpness at 17mm then there will be a question why we don't go for prime.
We choose a lens for a certain purpose, in case of doubt we must think again about what we need. In my gallery there are many photos shot either with the 17-40 or 17-85. In the FL range 17-40 it would be hard to say which photo is shot with which lens. But if you see a FL between 40 and 85 then you know what. It's so simple, L does not mean everything.
anncla wrote:
If we think we need to choose 17-40 due to its better corner sharpness at 17mm then there will be a question why we don't go for prime.
There really arent any decent WA primes wider than 20mm is the problem. The canon and sigma 14mm lens are pretty poor and for the money they each go for definatly not worth it IMHO
Theres the excellent 15mm fisheyes which are pretty sharp in the corners but defishing degrades that advantage a little as well.
Really the only WA choices are zooms like the sigma 12-24, the canon 16-35, 17-40 and of course the 17-85.
Many people actually use lens like the 12-24 as a prime though and really keep it at 12mm...Show more →
