I just stumbled on this informal comparison of the 17-85 with the 17-40L. The first two show the CA and difference in sharpness (especially in the corners) that people are talking about. It is not a complete test, and the aperture is not recorded, but the drop off in corner sharpeness for the17-85 at 17mm is dramatic. Yes, this is indicated by the MTF charts (from the Hong Kong Canon site), but it is nice to see how the MTF translates to an image. Image really isn't too bad in the center though, for a walk around lens.
Michael-M wrote:
EXACTLY!!!.............who in their right mind shoots a wide angle lens at wide open?
so what's your point?
But 24mm upwards on a 20D ISN'T wide angle. The question is, how far do you need to stop down to get good results (the 17-40 is still usable wide open) and how does that effect the range of conditions you can shoot in. The EF-S 18-55 is capable of reasonable shots when stopped down to f8-f11
hmm, i see your point.
i don't have any f/4 examples posted on the net at this time, but since my 17-85 is almost as sharp at f/4 as it is at f/8, i didn't even consider using it at f/4 for sample shots............what suprised me was that although there is definately some added CA at f/4 over what i used to get with the 17-40, i still find the 17-85 to be almost as sharp, especially in the center, and for prints (what we use our equipment for right?) at 13x19, i see very little difference at all.
oh well, i can see that we are going to diss the 17-85 forever and defend the 17-40 no matter what, so with all said, i'll just say that i am so much happier now that i got rid of the 17-40 and 24-70 in favor of the 17-85.
but, for those that really enjoy thier 17-40 and 24-70 shooting combos, i say enjoy!!
I own both the 17-40L and the 17-85. Without formal testing, I can tell you that I use the 17-40 far more than then 17-85. I have never had a lens that was much sharper than the 17-40.
Although there isn't 'much' of a price difference there is the extra 45mm to consider as well as the IS. Melor seemed to be able to hand-hold it fairly well though...I guess that's what burst mode is for
Although there isn't 'much' of a price difference there is the extra 45mm to consider as well as the IS. Melor seemed to be able to hand-hold it fairly well though...I guess that's what burst mode is for
Was handheld, but I had my elbows braced on something. Polish tripod.
ZooStation wrote:
Sheila, what brand polarizer do you use? ...I assume you're using one.
Its a generic brand which one of the camera chains in Oz sells (Camera House). So I cannot really tell you who makes it but it was fairly cheap - for a 77 mm filter).
I recently made the decision that the Canon 20D would be my first digital SLR. I had used mostly Nikon film cameras before so this was a switch for me. Next was the choice of lens. I had narrowed it down to the Canon 17-40 and the 17-85 when I found this forum. Sheila's pics are exactly the type/subject matter that I wish to produce. Decision made.
