Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:44 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Canon 17-55 Lens Review
PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:35 pm 
The resolution of the lens seems to be quite low. According to www.photozone.de the lens performs much better than, for example, the 17-85 lens. Also user reports indicate that the 17-55 is better than the cheaper lenses.

Therefore, I wonder whether you got a bad lens which performs relatively bad. Since build quality differs this might easily be the case.

What do you think?

Thx.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:14 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 9962
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand
Hello and welcome to the forums - how do you pronounce ___ by the way?!

Photozone uses different tests to us, so I'm not surprised to find different results. Even when sites use the same charts though, differences in lighting and analysis can still deliver varying results - and as you quite rightly point out, there are good and bad copies of lenses.

We tested the same 17-55mm lens on both the 350D and 400D, and while our 400D group test shows the 17-85mm slightly outresolving it in the middle at f8, this doesn't mean it's a better lens overall. You only have to look at the corner performance to see the 17-55mm take the lead over the 17-85. You may also find the 17-55mm performing better at smaller focal ratios such as f4-f5.6.

I'm certainly not disappointed by the 17-55mm results in any way - I think it's a superb lens and a great option if you're into low-light photography.

Hope that helps,

Gordon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:45 pm 
"how do you pronounce ___ by the way?!"

Errr...good question ;-) How about aligned triple-slash? *g*

"Photozone uses different tests to us, so I'm not surprised to find different results."

Agreed. But you say *simplified* that the 17-85 is good and that the 17-55 is good. Others say that the 17-55 plays in a completely different league and is much better than the 17-85. Therefore, I am wondering whether there are even better samples of the 17-55 (compared to the one you got).

Example: according to photozone the center resolution @24mm/ f8 for the 17-55 is 2053 (at f 5.6 it's even better). By contrast, the respective center resolution for the 17-85 is only 1909.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:18 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 9962
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand
Hi ___, yes, it's certainly possible my sample 17-55mm wasn't as good as theirs, but equally it's possible their 17-85mm was under par.

It sounds like we were testing at different focal lengths, possibly with different charts or methodologies too. There's a lot of variables.

Once again though, I was in no way disappointed by the 17-55mm. I think it's a great lens if you're into low-light work.

Gordon


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group