Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 26, 2005, 5:50 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
fz10_user's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 304
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
fz10,

Have you taken the MTF challenge? :-)

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65
Hi peripatetic,

The MTF chart sounds quite interesting but you know what everybpdy says about this chart.....as typed in my former post,I would haveliked that the 17-85IS would have been asharp lens (not so sharp but just a little), but as youshould know, it is not.

I invite you to post a sample taken at f5.6 in order to see how soft is the behaviour of this lens on the corners and even at the center of the image.

There are some persons who have had both lenses (17-85 vs 28-135) and maybe 7 out of 10 have returned the 17-85 because of its lack of shaprness (Check out the Fredmiranda's site).

I've never said that this lens is a piece of crap, but I just think this lens it's not worth the money if you are looking for sharp results. ($100 less will be a fair price)

If there werent cheaper alternatives to this lens, maybe I'd recommend this lens....but unfortunately IMHO the 28-135 IS, the Sigma 18-125 and also the Tamron 28-75 Di delivery better results.

And dont get mad, it's just myopinion which has been also supported by images (if you have seen the link I left above you get realized about what Im saying)

I leave you another link that I've recently found on the Dcresource forum

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/sho...107&page=2

Check out what the user called "timmciglobal" has posted on these lenses.....you are also free to ask on the Dpreview forum who prefers the 18-125 instead of the 17-85IS....maybe the first will be the winner.

Best Regards,
fz10_user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2005, 5:56 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
fz10_user's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 304
Default

RedHouse wrote:
Quote:
I'm afraid fz10 doesn't have a dslr so he can't really backup what he's saying
Dont know what are youtrying to provoke.....but I really do not mind....I based my opinion on images......if you dont take the time to click on the link....Im really sorry....thats up to you.....no more replies.

:arrow::arrow::arrow:


fz10_user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2005, 9:28 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
RedHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 216
Default

Kind of hard to take fz10's recommendations since he has no hands on experience like some others do.
RedHouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2005, 10:19 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
fz10_user's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 304
Default

RedHouse wrote:
Quote:
Kind of hard to take fz10's recommendations since he has no hands on experience like some others do.
:lol::lol::lol:You are really very funny my poor fellow :lol::lol::lollz, dont force me to call you "Troll"

C'mon baby......dont worry, be happy......go out and have a drink or two.
fz10_user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2005, 11:01 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
RedHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 216
Default

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::evil:
RedHouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2005, 1:12 AM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 65
Default

I've been using the Sigma 18-125 for a few weeks now and I've been quite happy with it. It is definitely at its worst on the short end and wide open but really not terrible even then. Tough to beat the price of the lens too. Fast focusing and good contrast on the images. I was afraid that it might be a shabby lens since it wasn't an "L" lens but after buying it I am quite happy with it.

It is coupled with my DReb XT. It has been my walking around lens and the only thing I wish for is if it was a wee bit faster. If that is a problem I fall back to my 70-200 2.8 since most of my shots are outdoors. It does draw some strange looks though if I use it indoors like at a mall or school.

All in all I think it fills some nice gaps that Canon has in its lens lineup. It has decent WA coverage and a fair zoom. Based on my happiness with this Sigma I bought a 55-200 just to check it out as I got a great deal on it to try it. For me the Sigma 18-125 compliments my 2 L lenses quite nicely. What I saved by buying it over the Canon 18-85 allowed me to pick up a nice 50mm 1.4 with the savings AND my 55-200 Sigma. Or to put it another way I got 3 good lenses rather than the 17-85 IS (Sigma 18-125 & 55-200 and Canon 50 1.4) for the same outlay of cash.

I would definitely like to try the Sigma 100-300. As for the Sigma 70-200 2.8 a very nice lens and I would have bought it rather than my Canon version of the same lens if I hadn't got such a great deal on it. Even though the 70-200 2.8 isn't exactly light if you couple it with a 1.4TC you have a lot of flexibility with what you can do with the lens. If you have a need for a fast lens like it then buy it! I tried the Sigma F4 version and it was quite nice too but I decided that I wanted/needed the faster lens.

I did think about the Sigma 100-300 very carefully but in the end I bought the Canon 100-400 IS USM just because on that size lens I thought I'd really use the IS. I was concerned I'd hate the push pull zoom on it but turned out I really like it. The Sigma does offer a lot of bang for the buck though. Did you think about their 80-400 OS (like IS) model too? I have seen some nice shots from it and it might be in the price range you are willing to spend.
Wavshrdr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2005, 8:22 AM   #17
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

fz10_user wrote:
Quote:
peripatetic wrote:
Hi peripatetic,

The MTF chart sounds quite interesting but you know what everybpdy says about this chart.....as typed in my former post, I would have liked that the 17-85 IS would have been a sharp lens (not so sharp but just a little), but as you should know, it is not.
There is only objective measure of sharpness and that is what is shown on the MTF chart. Opinions are cheap and easy to come by. The MTF shows that the lens is sharp; if you disagree then either Canon are lying about the chart which I doubt, or you are letting some other subjective response obscure the truth.

Quote:
There are some persons who have had both lenses (17-85 vs 28-135) and maybe 7 out of 10 have returned the 17-85 because of its lack of shaprness (Check out the Fredmiranda's site).
As I said, opinions are cheap. I read Fredmiranda very carefully before I chose to get the 17-85 lens. Frankly the comments I read were not convincing to me. Before deciding whether to take a review seriously you need to consider how reliable you consider the source to be. (And of course that applies to my comments equally.) I looked at reviews from all over the web and this forum and in general where I found the sources I regarded as giving sensible and credible comment - those sources universally though it was a good walkaround lens.

Quote:
I've never said that this lens is a piece of crap, but I just think this lens it's not worth the money if you are looking for sharp results. ($100 less will be a fair price)

If there werent cheaper alternatives to this lens, maybe I'd recommend this lens....but unfortunately IMHO the 28-135 IS, the Sigma 18-125 and also the Tamron 28-75 Di delivery better results.
I would agree that this lens is not the best value for money around, but it has a combination of features that I found to be compelling, and still do. Different people have different needs and requirements. I find it rather strange that you think you can give a precise monetary value to the lens. That's not how the market works - an item is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it.

Quote:
And dont get mad, it's just my opinion which has been also supported by images (if you have seen the link I left above you get realized about what Im saying)
I'm not mad, nor angry. :-)

If you look on this site you will find ample evidence that reasonable pictures can be taken with the 17-85.

Ultimately whether a lens is worthwhile or not is down to whether you can take pictures that suit your photographic style and needs at a price that suits you. For example, much is made of the performance of these lenses at 18mm with maximum aperture. As it happens that's not a good real-world test for me; I almost never take that kind of shot; at 18mm I'm usually at f11 or f14 to get maximum depth of field.

Quote:
I leave you another link that I've recently found on the Dcresource forum

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/sho...?t=6107&page=2

Check out what the user called "timmciglobal" has posted on these lenses.....you are also free to ask on the Dpreview forum who prefers the 18-125 instead of the 17-85IS....maybe the first will be the winner.

Best Regards,

It may well be that the 18-125 is optically a slightly better lens than the 17-85. Waveshrdr seems to be very pleased with his, and has made a very convincing and sensible case for why it was the most suitable choice for his requirements. It wasn't available when I bought my 17-85, if I were to buy one now I would give it very serious consideration, but frankly I think they are both "good enough" to take good pictures.

You need to decide whether the other characteristics of the lens - the IS, the fact that it's made by Canon, it's feel on the camera, etc mean that it's something you're willing to part with your money for.

And finally:

Quote:
I invite you to post a sample taken at f5.6 in order to see how soft is the behaviour of this lens on the corners and even at the center of the image.
How about this one taken at f5.6 which was the maximum aperture at 72mm zoom. How much sharper do you think it needs to be?

Attached Images
 
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2005, 2:19 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
fz10_user's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 304
Default

Peripatetic,

Nice kid, nice shot and also nice lens......however, the performance of any given lens, can not be judge by a resized image, since even a 2MP Compact Camera is able to show sharp and neat results at 860*640.....

What a lens or camera is capable to produce is measured by seing the image quality at full resolution......I mean, if you only need small prints, then why bother in spending more than $1,000.00 bucksif you are not gonna notice any differences betweenyour expensive 20D and a cheapCanonA95 at4*6 or even 13*17 enlargements.

For example, the picture below was taken with the XT + 17-85IS at f4 1/2 Iso 400



Do you think is it sharp???

If it is so, then check the full size: http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/newtest/plant.jpg

Maybe Im being quite a bit demanding, but I really need to make big prints.....

P.D. The picture above was taken by a Dpreview usercalled "Paul de Bra".
fz10_user is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2005, 2:24 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
RedHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 216
Default

Troll alert:!: fz10 how about posting some of your own pics from your Canon? There's only one troll here and it's you.
RedHouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2005, 3:48 PM   #20
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

IMO the person who took this picture doesn't know how to use a camera:





... the flower pot toward the bottom of the picture is in focus!
(ie the lens is just fine... luckily the IS save the day @ 1/2s). BTW the WB is also off :blah:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:26 AM.