Phil Youngblood
Veteran Member
ROFL -- the further this thread goes, the more comical it gets. So, that's a typical test shot for you, huh?
Phil
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
17-55mm F2.8 deal breaker (NO VR) - bought 16-85mm instead
- Thread starter Earl Brookes
- Start date
Phil
Phil Youngblood
Veteran Member
OK -- I'm thinking I need to call BS here. Do you really have your finger on the pulse of corporate America so tight you know they are switching to this brand new lens? I gotta ask for proof on this one.
Phil
Intrepid24
Leading Member
I said SMALL corporations. Most any businesses, including photogs, incorporate as S-Corporations.
Just the locals, Phil. Long Island. It's a fair indicator in a middle class demographic, nonetheless.
Joe Marques
Veteran Member
Not sure why you think my asking you questions indicates I'm upset? (Oh no, another question).
Challenge of the internet, never sure what the person intends.Fair enough, he said the IQ was excellent and the overall rating was 4. Taking his review in the grand scheme of things, it's useful and part of a sound decision. I'm just concerned when there's too much emphasis on reviews. Personal use is the only thing that really matters - either the lens meets YOUR needs or not.You said that Bjorn said it was stellar, I simply pointed out that he
gave it a 4 on a scale of 1 to 5. according to his description of
what a 4 means, it means it is "very good" to me "very good" does not
equal "stellar" he gives the 17-55 a 5 which he describes as
"excellent, Use such lenses as often as possible and let other people
wonder about the quality you can achieve with them" this sounds
closer to "stellar" to me
Absolutely, their review are credible and very useful. My point is I still find the 16-85 stellar my words ;-) and a real asset to my shooting style and needs. I also don't see the same dramatic vignette Bjorn' sees so I question if he had a problem copy (or maybe I have a good one, who knows).
Joe
Intrepid24
Leading Member
Agree, Joe.
I concur with your reply. The 16-85mm VR is a Stellar lens.
Earl Brookes
Member
so you want a test shot of some charts or perhaps cracks on a sidewalk to judge corner softness? This is called quick and dirty shot - it's not making the 17-55mm look as good as you'd like. I guess you buy lenses so you can shoot models all day long and skip over the normal use for a camera huh?
For some, $1200 is like $12.
For some, $1200 is like $12.
Astro Landscapes
Senior Member
it's very simple- you bought the lens you think will serve you the best.
The 16-85 is just as sharp as the 17-55, for the most part, if not even a hair sharper towards the center, when both are stopped down and the 16-85 is used within the 17-55 range.
If you don't shoot action in low light, and don't need the reliability of stout build quality, then the 16-85 is a brilliant lens, one that Canon can NOT match with it's own 17-85 IS.
If you do require the f/2.8 apeture AND more durability, you can get the 17-55 which is rock-solid and probably weather sealed, a lens AGAIN that Canon cannot (and probably will never) match...
Personally, I'd say that I could put BOTH lenses to good use. I shoot a lot of theater, where action is high and the light, well, it's pitch black. I also shoot in a lot of outdoor, rough conditions that simply demand strong, reliable equipment. So, I own the 17-55. It's a business expense, purely. I detest the thought of dragging it to family / friend stuff...
I also however do a lot of hiking, backpacking, and general photography in which case VR is useful, saved weight and exra reach is much appreciated. And the price is right since I would probably not be putting it down as a business expense...
--
Cameras capable of making great photographs have become commonplace these days, but photographers have not. While technical innovations have made photography ever easier in recent decades, the art of producing images that other people will care about has become even more formidable. Galen Rowell
The 16-85 is just as sharp as the 17-55, for the most part, if not even a hair sharper towards the center, when both are stopped down and the 16-85 is used within the 17-55 range.
If you don't shoot action in low light, and don't need the reliability of stout build quality, then the 16-85 is a brilliant lens, one that Canon can NOT match with it's own 17-85 IS.
If you do require the f/2.8 apeture AND more durability, you can get the 17-55 which is rock-solid and probably weather sealed, a lens AGAIN that Canon cannot (and probably will never) match...
Personally, I'd say that I could put BOTH lenses to good use. I shoot a lot of theater, where action is high and the light, well, it's pitch black. I also shoot in a lot of outdoor, rough conditions that simply demand strong, reliable equipment. So, I own the 17-55. It's a business expense, purely. I detest the thought of dragging it to family / friend stuff...
I also however do a lot of hiking, backpacking, and general photography in which case VR is useful, saved weight and exra reach is much appreciated. And the price is right since I would probably not be putting it down as a business expense...
--
Cameras capable of making great photographs have become commonplace these days, but photographers have not. While technical innovations have made photography ever easier in recent decades, the art of producing images that other people will care about has become even more formidable.
You're starting with a wrong assumption to trash Photozone and SLRgear. I agree with you that Thom's and Bjorn's reviews are great, but your "flat chart shooters are stupid" arguement is flawed. I'm sure you can figure out how to test the borders even on a flat chart (hints: 1) disable AF and 2) borders and center don't need to be sharp at the same time - test charts don't run away).
BG
BG
pixelman105
Senior Member
are you seriously suggesting that focusing on the corners to test them and then focusing on the center to test it could be a good test of the image quality a lens can give under normal use. - wow !
Nikon D200 and a 105 f/2D-DC
It's all I need
--
Nikon D200 and a 105 f/2D-DC
It's all I need
There's nothing "OMG" about that. If you want to test the resolving power of the lens, you do exactly that (not all subjects are flat). I'd speculate that Tom and Bjorn do it, too (they'll certainly correct me if I'm wrong). Field curvature is an issue separate from resolving potential, but of course, that method also yields information regarding field curvature.
If you say "normal use" - well, what's normal use anyway? There are formal tests (charts), and then there is testing on a selection of "real world" scenarios. They complement each other. If you suggest that formal tests are worthless, well, so be it.
But in any case, the arguement you used to trash PZ and SLRgear is flawed. You said there's no possible way a lens exhibiting field curvature can be focussed sharply on a flat subject over the entire frame. Right. But you can either use a curved subject (which is what a "real world test" would be like, I assume), or you can refocus. I don't see a big difference here.
BG
If you say "normal use" - well, what's normal use anyway? There are formal tests (charts), and then there is testing on a selection of "real world" scenarios. They complement each other. If you suggest that formal tests are worthless, well, so be it.
But in any case, the arguement you used to trash PZ and SLRgear is flawed. You said there's no possible way a lens exhibiting field curvature can be focussed sharply on a flat subject over the entire frame. Right. But you can either use a curved subject (which is what a "real world test" would be like, I assume), or you can refocus. I don't see a big difference here.
BG
I guess the 17-55 is not you lens because you don't want it to be. At some points you have owned and used Canon gear with expensive glass but for you it is not fair from Nikon not to include VR on the 17-55 and you are not willing to get the 17-55 as long as Nikon chops a few hundred from the retail price?????
I don't say the Canon 17-55 is optically a bad lens. But for the price you don't get the lens hood neither you get 4 extra years of warranty and if you buy that stuff separately, you'll end up paying almost the same without the same build quality the Nikkor 17-55 has over the Canon version. For what I understand, you are just measuring/judging the lens as a whole just by the lack of VR. I use my 17-55 for proffessional purposes as well as the same as you intend to, home, family, vacations. For that reason when I don't need the extra speed and the 17-55's bulk, I recently bought a nice condition 18-55. It is your style and I respect it, but I don't see the benefit of VR on that focal length. If you were in Canon, you had a 17-85 option as well. If you are going thru all this trouble just for VR-II, I guess the is something to be done with your technique.
I cannot be happier with my all-plastic 18-55 stopped down a click or 2.
I don't say the Canon 17-55 is optically a bad lens. But for the price you don't get the lens hood neither you get 4 extra years of warranty and if you buy that stuff separately, you'll end up paying almost the same without the same build quality the Nikkor 17-55 has over the Canon version. For what I understand, you are just measuring/judging the lens as a whole just by the lack of VR. I use my 17-55 for proffessional purposes as well as the same as you intend to, home, family, vacations. For that reason when I don't need the extra speed and the 17-55's bulk, I recently bought a nice condition 18-55. It is your style and I respect it, but I don't see the benefit of VR on that focal length. If you were in Canon, you had a 17-85 option as well. If you are going thru all this trouble just for VR-II, I guess the is something to be done with your technique.
I cannot be happier with my all-plastic 18-55 stopped down a click or 2.
calson
Forum Pro
What really sucks is to have the IS on your Canon 17-55mm lens shut downin the middle of a wedding and not be able to use the lens until you can get it repaired by Canon (for the second or third time). When IS t goes on the fritz, not at all uncommon with these Canon lenses, the lens cannot be used until it is repaired, even with IS turned off.
I have used the Canon 24-105mm f4 IS lens and the range is great for use outdoors. Indoors it is too slow for my needs for photographing people at events, so when shooting with Canon cameras I use the 16-35mm f2.8 which really limits my range.
Shooting people indoors or out I use 1/80th or faster, and add in the new cameras with usable ISO 1600-3200 capabilities and there is really little reason to add VR/IS to a f2.8 lens under 100mm in length. Even when I was using the "ISO challenged" D2x I had no problem getting sharp images a 1/20th with the 17-55mm lens, or even 1/6 with a little extra care.
I have used the Canon 24-105mm f4 IS lens and the range is great for use outdoors. Indoors it is too slow for my needs for photographing people at events, so when shooting with Canon cameras I use the 16-35mm f2.8 which really limits my range.
Shooting people indoors or out I use 1/80th or faster, and add in the new cameras with usable ISO 1600-3200 capabilities and there is really little reason to add VR/IS to a f2.8 lens under 100mm in length. Even when I was using the "ISO challenged" D2x I had no problem getting sharp images a 1/20th with the 17-55mm lens, or even 1/6 with a little extra care.
pixelman105
Senior Member
you can talk about re-focusing or using a curved subject all you want, but the Imatest instructions (which is the testing software used by photozone) which you can read here
http://www.imatest.com/docs/sfr_instructions.html#photo
specifically call for a totally flat test chart and no re-focusing
and, even if they did call for re-focusing the results would have no relationship to real world photography simply because when you take a picture you do not have the option of re-focusing to get the corners sharp and re-focusing again to get the center sharp all in one picture.
If you want to rely on the flat world testers that is great, but you should know that if you are dealing with a lens that has field curvature the results of their tests will always show substantial corner softness that may or may not show up in actual photographs.
As an example I would point to the review on photozone of the sigma 30mm f/1.4. this lens does have substantial field curvature and photozone gives it poor corner MTF numbers much lower than the Nikon 35mm f/2, yet in real world use most users who have owned and used both lenses seem to think the 30 is the sharper lens - even in the corners.
here is a side by side real world test of the corner sharpness of the 30 vs the 35 - it sure does not agree with the test chart results from photozone
http://www.pbase.com/miljenko/image/50160028
Nikon D200 and a 105 f/2D-DC
It's all I need
http://www.imatest.com/docs/sfr_instructions.html#photo
specifically call for a totally flat test chart and no re-focusing
and, even if they did call for re-focusing the results would have no relationship to real world photography simply because when you take a picture you do not have the option of re-focusing to get the corners sharp and re-focusing again to get the center sharp all in one picture.
If you want to rely on the flat world testers that is great, but you should know that if you are dealing with a lens that has field curvature the results of their tests will always show substantial corner softness that may or may not show up in actual photographs.
As an example I would point to the review on photozone of the sigma 30mm f/1.4. this lens does have substantial field curvature and photozone gives it poor corner MTF numbers much lower than the Nikon 35mm f/2, yet in real world use most users who have owned and used both lenses seem to think the 30 is the sharper lens - even in the corners.
here is a side by side real world test of the corner sharpness of the 30 vs the 35 - it sure does not agree with the test chart results from photozone
http://www.pbase.com/miljenko/image/50160028
--
Nikon D200 and a 105 f/2D-DC
It's all I need
No, it will not. Definitely not. There was a recent discussion on this topic on PZ where somebody asked exactly for that (no refocusing, and give lenses with field curvature poor corner MTF), and Klaus refused.
The 30/1.4 was not tested on Nikon. Resolution figures are not cross-system comparable. Additionally, this is edge performance, not corner performance, that's not so important. Nuff said.
BG
No, this is in general... Nikon does not provide VR on any wide angle professional lens. It must have a reason, isn't it? 17-55, 24-70, 28-70, 14-24 etc... All without VR. VR in the tele-end is more effective, no doubt about that.
Here you are right, but this is something you have to take into account when making this decision. For example, A friend of mine just bought a D60 with 16-85 and called me and complained about fuzzy shots with VR on. Well, after having received some images via mail, that was simply subject movement...
pixelman105
Senior Member
you are very odd - dont you realize that the edges of an image are in the corners?
Are you and Klaus special lovers or something??
Nikon D200 and a 105 f/2D-DC
It's all I need
Are you and Klaus special lovers or something??
--
Nikon D200 and a 105 f/2D-DC
It's all I need
LOL... no, edge is edge and corner is corner (corner is where two edges meet). Can't be that difficult to figure out. Just look at the images you linked to. Are you suggesting the hydrant is in the corner of the frame?
Are you suggesting I'm homosexual?
BG
That kind of personal invective is totally uncalled for.
--
Nothing is more tragic than the murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of brutal facts.
M
Michael Oersigh
Guest
Lets get soemthing right you would like VR on the 17-55, but a Nikkor Lens does not suck because of a lack of VR not for some folks, maybe a Canon would but not a Nikkor. Nikkor+ VR is useful or maybe very useful indeed but but no VR just means you need to crank up the ISO and/or use faster lenses because without them you would still get blurry shots VR or no VR.
mIKE
mIKE
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum