I actually own a 17-85 and think it's not bad, but not great. I take most my photos at F8 simply because the sharpness is almost tac-on at that f-stop.
Just wondering if anyone has done any comparisons of these 2 lenses? I have searched the boards and didn't find much comparing these 2 particular ones.
I've read that L lenses in general provide better contrast...
Anyway, I'm wondering which has better sharpness and contrast throughout the zoom range (obviously only up to 40mm on the 17-85 )
Edited by ZooStation on Jun 11, 2005 at 11:16 PM GMT
Doesn't turn me off any, though I have never tried the 17-85mm.
As for info. One aspect that you haven't mentioned about L lenses is the fact that they are "usually" very sharp wide open. So, if your 17-85mm is performing on average, it wouldn't fair too well on the wide open end, as the 17-40 would. However, stopped down, they're probably fairly close, but I'd like to know more about barrel distortion and CA.
As for colour, I never did like the 17-40mm in this regard. I personally don't think it competes with some of the other L lenses out there, like the 16-35mm, or the 20-35mm L way before it. I guess this is personal preferences, but I guess this is how it goes. Actually, this is one reason I opted for the cheap 18-55 while the other being that I always use wide angle lenses stopped down.
that says alot about what you might know about photography...
I may be talking out my ass...
Something like that
Although i honestly dont find the 17-40 all that sharp (based on two differnt lenses i've used) i would think that at the wider aperatures it should perform a little better. But honestly, you've already got the 17-85...and it's got IS. I'd invest in something differnt.
Although i honestly dont find the 17-40 all that sharp (based on two differnt lenses i've used) i would think that at the wider aperatures it should perform a little better. But honestly, you've already got the 17-85...and it's got IS. I'd invest in something differnt.
Hey timmy, were your copies soft across the board: center and corners?
I don't know if it was my copy, but I found it very sharp in the center but fairly soft in the corners, especially FF. I guess its to be expected for a wide angle zoom, but it was a bit frustrating.
Clayphish wrote:
Hey timmy, were your copies soft across the board: center and corners?
I don't know if it was my copy, but I found it very sharp in the center but fairly soft in the corners, especially FF. I guess its to be expected for a wide angle zoom, but it was a bit frustrating.
They wernt bad copies. I was merly comparing their sharpness to my other L's, and my 50mm f/1.8, other L's being 70-200 f/2.8 and 300 f/4. Obviously it isnt going to be as sharp as the prime L, and really it doesnt have to be as sharp as another zoom L. But based on my copy, and my bosses copy, i have noticed that they are both just kind of softer then i would expect from an L lens. They arnt bad lenses by any stretch, but they sure didnt impress me as much as i had wished. That is PART of the reason i sold the 17-40 (the other being that i only used it at 17mm)
I have the 17-40 and I tested it in a shop against the 17-85IS as I was interested in this lens because of its range. My conclusion is the 17-85IS has much more CA, and some distortion and vignetting at 17mm, sharpness at usual apertures is not significalively different. Contrast is only slightly better with the 17-40. Build quality feels better with the 17-40. So it all comes down to this question: do you need the 40-85mm range and the IS? Sometimes I think it might come handy... Sometimes I think it would not be worth the loss in quality. As you see I am still wondering.
pierrot wrote:
I have the 17-40 and I tested it in a shop against the 17-85IS as I was interested in this lens because of its range. My conclusion is the 17-85IS has much more CA, and some distortion and vignetting at 17mm, sharpness at usual apertures is not significalively different. Contrast is only slightly better with the 17-40. Build quality feels better with the 17-40. So it all comes down to this question: do you need the 40-85mm range and the IS? Sometimes I think it might come handy... Sometimes I think it would not be worth the loss in quality. As you see I am still wondering....Show more →
this is pretty much how i would say it as well. my end choice was the 17-85. sold the 17-40 and a 24-70.
here is a 17mm shot i use for evaluation, i have one from the 17-40 of the same scene but will post it later if you like. full size side be side is hard to tell the difference. i'll post both at full size later, but for now..................
here is a 17-85IS gallery that i uploaded full size Jpeg images to...............all are handheld shots, and none are meant for photographic criticism, just shots to show the lens capabilities................
I am a hobbyist but I do know about dof and how it works. I just have evaluated how much better my photos look at f8-f11....There is just that much more detail. Although it may be hard for you to believe but I actually rarely ever go above f16 with my 17-85 because of the distortion...
Hey Michael, those pics look pretty close...keeping in mind the overcast day...do you remember if you had sharpening turned on higher for the 17-85? The lettering of the building looks very sharp but the bricks (in the center of the image) look very similar in both cases.
Well, I went to the camera store today to test out the 17-40L for myself.
I did tests at:
Canon 17-40mm: 17mm at f4, f8, f16, f22
Canon 17-85mm: 17mm at f4.5, f8, f16, f22
Canon 17-40mm: 40mm at f4, f8, f16, f22
Canon 17-85mm: 44mm at f4.5, f8, f16, f22 (tried to get 40mm, but close enough)
Probably should've done some at f11 but the guy was being anal so I had to rush through it.
Anyway, if anyone wants to see the results let me know. They seem pretty similar side-by-side...the L being slightly sharper at 17mm...but the sun was casting overcast shadows while the L was on...but then switching to muddy overcast when the 17-85 was popped on causing the shutter speed to slow down somewhat, which could account for the differences.
)