Camera Labs

I'd just like to point out, that as an owner of first the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my Digital Rebel, and now the 17-85mm IS, that DxO Optics Pro is a really useful tool to deal with the vignetting, pincushion/barrel distortion, chromatic aberration, and lastly, the soft corners of this otherwise fine piece of glass.

As a bonus, DxO Pro can be used with a number of other lenses in your collection (including the 18-55mm, among others) to help with these kinds of issues.

Note that I'm not associated with DxO Labs, other than as a satisfied customer.

If you are persistant, you can find this lens at a good discount. I got mine for about $350 with US warantee from Dell, during one of their recent sales. They took ten weeks to ship it, but it still beat most other prices available, even now. That makes it an even better bargain, compared to the 17-40L.

_________________
Machine vision? At least *they* can see the future...

Hello, and thanks for joining the Forum...

You're right, software can correct (or at least greatly improve the appearence of) all manner of optical distortions. I've not tried DxO myself yet, but have had some good experiences with other packages, most recently, Photoshop's Lens Correction Filter in CS2.

I think it might make an interesting article to present our full optical results for a lens before and after software correction has been applied, to see how it might compare with a higher-end product... We are also planning a series of workshops on correcting optical issues for the future.

In the meantime, if anyone has used any other good correction tools, or indeed has some winning techniques they'd care to share, please let us know!

Gordon

I too have found the lens correction filter in Photoshop CS2 pretty useful. It doesn't always work perfectly, particularly if the lens as 'wavy-line' distortion, but for correcting a bit of barrel distortion and keystoning it's really good. Simon

so the 17-85mm IS that Canon offers is suitable for a good general purpose lens?
I think the f4 is kind of slow at wide angle. the 28-135 is 3.5 while the 17-55 is 2.8 through the whole focal range. the 24-105 is f4 too, but constant 'till 105mm.
i would be interested in the build quality too, as i never touched any of those lenses except the 28-135 wich i find ok but the zoom ring wasn't so smooth.
i don't know what to do and i'm thinkin' wich of those lenses has a better quality(performance)/price ratio.
vlad

PS: the lenses would be mounted on a EOS 350D

_________________
I am the architect of my own destruction...

Hi Noji, have you read our 17-85mm and 17-55mm reviews? They're at

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon1785EFS/

and

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon1755EFS/

They should answer your questions... but the 17-85 is a better general purpose lens due to its longer range and cheaper price. The 17-55 is a more specialised lens for people who really need the bright f2.8 aperture throughout the range. It's an impressive lens, but quite expensive, heavy and the range is of course less than the 17-85mm.

The trouble with using the 24-105 and 28-135 on bodies like the 350D is their focal lengths are effectively multiplied by 1.6 times, so they don't offer any wide angle coverage. This rules them out for most people, but you may find the range acceptable.

Gordon

thanks for the replies.

i've already read the lens reviews. the 17-55 tempts me because of it's f2.8 through all the zoom range. I would need a lens who manage to shoot well in low light conditions, as well as helping the camera to focus easily in the same low light conditions. i'm not a really big fan of flashlites . the price is scarring though. it's big and heavy because is a lot of glass. the optic quality, close to the L series lenses, really atracts me too.

the 17-85 covers more zoom as you've said, it's cheaper but only f4 max at wide angle, the optic quality isn't as high as the 17-55.

overall it's a hard desition, it's like a Shakesperean question: "To be, or not to be, that is the question". is it worth the investement for the 17-55 or should i stick with the 17-85?

_________________
I am the architect of my own destruction...

Hello again Noji, you might find our latest feature useful:

It's a group test of general purpose Canon lenses including the 17-85 and 17-55mm. They're tested with the 400D, but the pros and cons for each apply to the 350D and other Canon APS-C bodies. It may help your decision...

http://www.cameralabs.com/features/Cano ... s_upgrade/

Gordon

the lens group test was great! it so good to see such a "head" to "head" comparison...anyway i hope there will be a group test in the future wich will include the 28-135 and the 24-105L lenses...

i wish you all the best and good luck

_________________
I am the architect of my own destruction...

Gordon, thanks for a great site and the reviews.
I will have a question or 2 later, but thought you might be interested in my experience with the 17-85. I have been using it and my other lenses here in the heat and rain for about 14 months. The 17-85 has developed quite a bit of fungus inside the lens and has let some dust in, while my 2 L lenses and the 50mm 1.4 show no signs of either. All lenses have been in the same conditions, cleaned regularly etc and looked after the same way. Keep up the good work. Bernard[quote="Gordon Laing"]Hello, and thanks for joining the Forum...

You're right, software can correct (or at least greatly improve the appearence of) all manner of optical distortions. I've not tried DxO myself yet, but have had some good experiences with other packages, most recently, Photoshop's Lens Correction Filter in CS2.

I think it might make an interesting article to present our full optical results for a lens before and after software correction has been applied, to see how it might compare with a higher-end product... We are also planning a series of workshops on correcting optical issues for the future.

In the meantime, if anyone has used any other good correction tools, or indeed has some winning techniques they'd care to share, please let us know!

Gordon[/quote]

Bula Bernard! Welcome to the Cameralabs forums.

Many of the higher end lenses like Canon's L range feature better environmental sealing which would certainly improve their protection against such things, but I must admit I'm surprised to hear your 17-85mm has been so badly affected. I guess the weather in Fiji can be tough on photographic equipment.

Even though it's more than a year old though, I still think it's worth returning it to your nearest Canon service center for a service - or at least their comments. It would be interesting to hear if this is an isolated example, or a common occurence in certain parts of the world, and how best to combat it.

Gordon