which is the best: 17-85 mm or 18-55 quality-wise?

[s majesk]

I still think I'll buy the XT "Kit" anyhow?

Will make a great back-up lens, compact and light for all day
on your feet, outings.

A general knock around lens for activities, hiking, biking.

On rainy days or during the cold winters, easier to fit under coat
and don't worry about getting a little wet!

Save $50 on a good multicoated filter, no need to worry.

Seems like eveyone wants to stop down to get decent
depth of field for focus range Anyhow?

 

[jlibus]

I currently shoot 99.9% jpeg, so I'm the opposite end of the spectrum.
I haven't really dived into this post processing routine yet, but
the 350D's RAW+jpeg facility is pretty neat once I find the hard
disk space for it, so at least I can play around with a RAW if I
need to.

by the way does this image have the sharpening haloes that you
mention?
http://www.wan.st/public/17-85mm/IMG_5925.JPG

Nice shoot. The lighting condition for this scene is quite difficult to meter (with 800 ISO) but you did a very good job. You managed to retain the detail of the bird with such high contrast (too high for my taste) back lighting condition. However, something really bugs me about the beautiful bird. I just can’t confirm that this morning by using a junk monitor at work. Now at home I can see the problem is that the image is too soft. This is to my surprise since you did set the in camera sharpening to +2 (confirmed in the EXIF)! How the image can then be NOT over sharpened plus it is too soft? In fact I touched up the image using PSE in 5 seconds, only to apply the simple auto fix then auto sharpening (no fancy stuff). Boy, that makes a big difference and the image is now sharp enough to be acceptable (for my taste). Even after the PSE sharpening there is still no obvious sharpening artifact. Indeed this is quite strange. I don’t think your 17-85mm lens is as sharp as mine. I guess I just got lucky by getting a very good copy.

Shot wide open, pretty pleased how sharp and colourful the image
came out of the camera. Composition is off though, as didn't want
to scare the bird off and I was already bumping 85mm on the 17-85mm
IS

 

[kcwan]

Yes, lucky you, - you have a good copy.

...and slightly unlucky for me :-(
(unless the bird moved causing a bit of motion blur)

btw, thanks for the detailed analysis

 

[Peter Spiro]

There is a lot of disdain for this lens, because of the very cheap look and feel of its plastic body. However, optically it is really not bad at all. Admittedly, a metal mount and ring USM focussing would be nice to have on it.

Here's a shot at 55mm and f/5.6:

 

[samlx]

kcwan, you may actually have a good copy. The leaf (with the droplets) above the bird's head seems pretty sharp. Could just be a slight back focus shot.

 

[jimyh]

Very nice!

 

[kcwan]

Not a bad shot.

I personally don't think the construction is too bad myself (until I see the Nikon kit lens that is )

 

[SdeGat]

I agree that IS helps but it seems I have the same problem Paul has: flat pictures. Could it be that some people out there are good at fixing their photos in PS?

Here's where IS helps:



More 17-85 pictures in here:

http://www.pbase.com/sylvain/canon1785

As far as Paul’s photo image quality concern, they are due to a
lack of contrast and highlights (depth). It is FLAT and that won’t
do any justice for the XT and the 17-85mm lens. I’m looking back at
my photos and tried to find some similar quality images. Sorry,
couldn’t find any. In fact I looked as far back as 2003. I got some
scene similar to that which I shot with the Canon S30 P&S camera in
the Boston Commons Garden. Heck, the S30 can produce better images
than that. To be honest, I would return the XT and 17-85mm lens
for such image quality photos. No offence to Paul, I’m just too
picky when it comes to image quality.
By the way, I shoot 99% in RAW. I do shoot JEPG occasionally but
only use parameter 2 for the natural look then later apply PP in PS
if needed. I hate sharpening haloes so I would never set the in
camera sharpening to above 0.

 

[kcwan]

could be...

or I do have a slightly poorer copy of the 17-85mm so the differences between my perhaps much better than average copy MK II kit lens are narrowed.

I was going to sell my Mk II kit lens since I have the 17-85mm,

but I'm not so sure now, as the performance from it seems superlative for what it is.

 

[kcwan]

I don't think your images are that bad, as you shoot in RAW with no fancy post processing. I shoot in jpeg mode with the incamera enhancements so when it comes out of camera it looks more jazzier more like a consumer Point and shoot camera, a bit exaggerated.

I'm tiring of it now, and turning down the contrast for a more natural look!

 

[SdeGat]

It seems shooting RAW with post-processing is the way to do. Did you ever take a look at the Eric Cote's pictures: http://www.pbase.com/drhangar/root

Pretty impressive but I am not able to do the post-processing he does to his pictures...

 

[Peter Spiro]

Considering its low price, the 18-55 is clearly an excellent value, and it also has the merit of being very light in weight.

From what I have heard of the 17-85mm, it is not as good a value for the money. The IS is of limited usefulness for short focal lengths, and I would prefer it if Canon made a cheaper version of this lens that left out the IS and the associated cost and weight.

Not a bad shot.

I personally don't think the construction is too bad myself (until
I see the Nikon kit lens that is )

 

[speediq99]

If it helps, I decided to go with a Canon 28-135 (more reach, better quality than 18-55) and use the kit lens (18-55) w/ a polarizer for the occassional landscape shots. The 18-55 is a steal at the kit price and for 8x10 pictures, it probably doesn't make much difference.

Take a look at you picture gallery to decide at what focal length you use for the majority of your shots. In my case, I found only a small percentage of landscape shots and a large number of shots in the 28-135 range.

Mike

 

[Bradley Grant93796]

P

From what I have heard of the 17-85mm, it is not as good a value
for the money. The IS is of limited usefulness for short focal
lengths, and I would prefer it if Canon made a cheaper version of
this lens that left out the IS and the associated cost and weight.

I agree, a 17-85mm without IS would make a more affordable lens, as a moderately priced upgrade lens to the kit lens from Canon for these APS-C size sensors seems to be missing.

Bradley

 

[jlibus]

I don’t agree that the EF-S 17-85mm IS USM lens is over priced because of its features provided and the zoom ratio with good image quality (relative speaking). Of course the kit lens is with the best value for money. We just can’t compare apples to oranges between these two lenses.
My taste for the lenses are:
FE-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5USM $1049 (all in Canadian fund)
EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro USM $600
EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM $1649
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM $2579
?? 200-400mm f/?? USM (no such beast)

Do I have all these lenses? No, because this is just a hobby to me and I don’t make a living on it. So I don’t see the justification for the cost (even though I can afford them).
My current setup is:
EF-S 17-85mm IS USM (Most used for walk-around)

EF-S 60mm Macro (Ordered and will be available by the end of this month. If the image quality is not up to my taste then I will buy the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro instead.)

EF 70-200mm F/4L USM (Not the IS and F/2.8, it’s too bulky and heavy. The main reason I got the XT instead of the 20D is because the size and weight advantage of the XT.)
Tamron SP AF1.4x TC

I hope some day Canon could make a 200-400mm zoom lens (any type) so that I can have the entire range covered. The only 200-400mmm lens I found is the Tamron made and it is not that good.

 

[doc_ivan]

nice "teleshot"... is the wide angle as good?
Ivan
--



(for the moment.. a Canon S40 + OM2 and would be 350d-user)

 

[doc_ivan]

I don’t agree that the EF-S 17-85mm IS USM lens is over priced
because of its features provided and the zoom ratio with good image
quality (relative speaking). Of course the kit lens is with the
best value for money. We just can’t compare apples to oranges
between these two lenses.
My taste for the lenses are:
FE-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5USM $1049 (all in Canadian fund)
EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro USM $600
EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM $1649
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM $2579
?? 200-400mm f/?? USM (no such beast)
Do I have all these lenses? No, because this is just a hobby to me
and I don’t make a living on it. So I don’t see the justification
for the cost (even though I can afford them).
My current setup is:
EF-S 17-85mm IS USM (Most used for walk-around)
EF-S 60mm Macro (Ordered and will be available by the end of this
month. If the image quality is not up to my taste then I will buy
the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro instead.)
EF 70-200mm F/4L USM (Not the IS and F/2.8, it’s too bulky and
heavy. The main reason I got the XT instead of the 20D is because
the size and weight advantage of the XT.)
Tamron SP AF1.4x TC
I hope some day Canon could make a 200-400mm zoom lens (any type)
so that I can have the entire range covered. The only 200-400mmm
lens I found is the Tamron made and it is not that good.

Is this 70-200 not bulky?... enough for me though..

btw.. could u "show" me some pictures taken with the 17-85 lens.. tele AND wide ange plz..
Thx in advance
Ivan

--



(for the moment.. a Canon S40 + OM2 and would be 350d-user)

 

[doc_ivan]

The images were not intended to show of color or contrast, just how
both lenses perform under similar circumstances. These two scenes
just happened to be comparable even though there was maybe 8 months
between them.
This is a very flat, dull scene, and especially the second set of
pictures were taken on a very overcast day.
There is really nothing wrong with my camera (a DRebel, not XT).
(Just look at other pics in my galleries.) But sometimes you just
have a very flat scene.

--
Still learning to use the DRebel (only around 12.500 shots)
Public pictures at http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/

and which lenses do you use?

--



(for the moment.. a Canon S40 + OM2 and would be350d-user)

 

[M. Mitchell]

The 18-55 was tested by Popular Photography magazine in the May 2005 issue.They call it optically terrific.

 

[doc_ivan]

Is that good or bad.. terrific??
Ivan

The 18-55 was tested by Popular Photography magazine in the May
2005 issue.They call it optically terrific.

--



(for the moment.. a Canon S40 + OM2 and would be 8080-user)