SEL20F28 impresses and puzzles at the same time

Started Apr 10, 2013 | Discussions thread
BigG30 Regular Member • Posts: 410
The Canon is obviously better, but...

007peter wrote:

BigG30 wrote:

It rivaled my Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 (considered one of the best crop fast zooms) at f/5.6 to f/8, and was even sharper than the Canon in the middle around 20mm to 30mm. I did find the Canon was perhaps very slightly better in the corners, but I was blown away by how good this cheap, compact and lightweight the powerzoom was. A hugely underrated lens.

I had Canon 17-55 f/2.8 as well.  Its one of the sharpest canon lens I'd ever own, and I owned about 19+ lens in my 8yrs with canon.

I love the fact that canon doesn't cheat and hides lens optical flaw with software correction on barrel distortion and CA. Why is this important?

because I can SEE how superior optic on Canon 17-55 justified its $1200 price tag over my Canon 17-85 IS lens which suffer poorly on barrel distortion.  If I pay over $1200 for any lens, I like to know that I'm paying for pure optical performance, and NOT Software Enhancement.

My Canon 17-85 (really bad Barrel/CA) can be sharper than Canon 17-55 using PT LENS software correction.  But I don't go around claiming that my 17-85 match my 17-55 because that is just cheating.

It's a superb lens (the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8) and clearly has an advantage with the f/2.8 through the whole zoom range. I was just quite surprised that the 16-50PZ was as good, if not better, than the 17-55mm f/2.8 when stopped down between the 20mm to 30mm range. I was expecting the 16-50 PZ to be rubbish, but it's an excellent, inexpensive pancake zoom that Sony have done very well with.

I do miss my Canon 17-55mm, but it's a completely different beast / tool.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow