And my sharpest lens is -- the 17-85IS

[Marc Levesque]

I'm not kidding!!! I have the 50mm 1.8, the 100mm 2.8 Macro, the 70-200f4L, and the lens that comes out the sharpest is the 17-85!!! The other are all lenses renowed for their sharpness, and they are sharp. But with the 17-85IS, I hardly apply any sharpeningi at all in C1LE, otherwise, it's too much. I'm dumbfounded. I must have gotten really, really lucky with my copy.

 

[kcwan]

any crop / full samples?

You other lenses are a tough act to beat.

How much you selling for ;-)

 

[Marc Levesque]

I'll do so as soon as I can. I have issues with Pbase, because I changed computers recently, and can't remember what my password is.

 

[Juardis]

please do post. I just bought this lens a week ago. Have almost 200 pics to date. Some are incredibly sharp to my eyes, some are soft and fuzzy to my eyes. I'd love to see what you think is incredibly sharp.

 

[Aguru]

I suppose IS really helps in your case. I'd test out these lenses on tripod and see if that's still true--then I'm sorry that your other lenses are not up to par.

I'm not kidding!!! I have the 50mm 1.8, the 100mm 2.8 Macro, the
70-200f4L, and the lens that comes out the sharpest is the 17-85!!!
The other are all lenses renowed for their sharpness, and they are
sharp. But with the 17-85IS, I hardly apply any sharpeningi at all
in C1LE, otherwise, it's too much. I'm dumbfounded. I must have
gotten really, really lucky with my copy.

 

[jamesfrmphilly]

it is capable of incredible sharpness on the 20D.
it is totally underrated.

 

[tasty donuts]

I suppose IS really helps in your case. I'd test out these lenses
on tripod and see if that's still true--then I'm sorry that your
other lenses are not up to par.

yes, i hope it's not that your other lenses are not good copies! while i don't doubt your observations, something doesn't sound quite right here... those other lenses you have, especially 100 macro and 70-200/4L are super sharp.

e.g. i shot this with my friend's 70-200/4L. absolutely no post-processing other than scaling:



if your 17-85IS is sharper than this, i'm impressed.

 

[MarkMcCombs]

I'm sure it's great, but with it being that slow, how can you get any sort of blurred background (i.e. portraits, etc.)?

MM

 

[Jason Kim]

I wish I had your lens. I like the focal range but my copy was no where near my 24-70L.
--
See profile for my current setup.

 

[Jason64167]

So tread lightly. I made a similar observation when comparing the 17-85IS with a 24-70 and I never took such a beating in a forum as I did over that. I provided crops but since shutter speed wasn't the same it was claimed that it was the IS making the 17-85 "look sharper" than it really was.

 

[SKumar]

you compared the 17-85 @ 85mm vs 24-70L @ 70mm.

Trying testing the 17-85 @ 17mm against the 24-70L @ 24mm.

 

[Paul De Bra]

I guess it is a message that needs repeating once in a while. Scaling down an image (not cropping) is a powerful sharpening and noise reduction tool. Sharpness (and noise) of images can only be judged at the 100% level, either in the full resolution image or in a crop (a small cut out represented at 100%).

I suppose IS really helps in your case. I'd test out these lenses
on tripod and see if that's still true--then I'm sorry that your
other lenses are not up to par.

yes, i hope it's not that your other lenses are not good copies!
while i don't doubt your observations, something doesn't sound
quite right here... those other lenses you have, especially 100
macro and 70-200/4L are super sharp.

e.g. i shot this with my friend's 70-200/4L. absolutely no
post-processing other than scaling:



if your 17-85IS is sharper than this, i'm impressed.

--
Still learning to use the DRebel (only around 15.000 shots)
Public pictures at http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/

 

[Paul De Bra]

You only need that when the subject is close to that background. And with the largest aperture you risk not having all of your subject within acceptable focus. (I do not particularly like portraits with the eyes in focus and the nose and ears all blurred.

Following picture was taken at f8. Subject (flowers) nicely in focus. Background blurred because I was close to the flower and the background was about 20 feet away. At f8 I would have got an even more blurred background. You certainly don't want a much wider aperture because then not all of the flower will be in focus.



.

I'm sure it's great, but with it being that slow, how can you get
any sort of blurred background (i.e. portraits, etc.)?

MM

--
Still learning to use the DRebel (only around 15.000 shots)
Public pictures at http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/

 

[Paul De Bra]

because the field of view or perspective is different at 17mm versus 24mm.

Some people think that anyone who claims that any copy of any consumer lens ever being sharper than any copy of any L lens wants to start a religious war. The reality is that sharpness of a picture depends a lot on focus accuracy (which our cameras are not too good at) and all zooms are sharper at some focal length than at others.

you compared the 17-85 @ 85mm vs 24-70L @ 70mm.

Trying testing the 17-85 @ 17mm against the 24-70L @ 24mm.

--
Still learning to use the DRebel (only around 15.000 shots)
Public pictures at http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/

 

[SKumar]

because the field of view or perspective is different at 17mm
versus 24mm.

Exactly, and it is also different between 70mm and 85mm.

The reality is that sharpness of a picture depends a lot on focus accuracy (which our cameras are not
too good at) and all zooms are sharper at some focal length than at
others.

I agree, but how does this relate to testing 2 lenses at differing FLs? Wouldn't it have been smarter to at least compare both @ 70mm?

 

[mungozan]

--
Equipment list on profile.
http://www.pbase.com/mungo
http://www.mungofoto.tk

 

[ashon]

If you're going to make any generalizations about lens sharpness you'd better hope you were using a solid tripod, mirror lockup, good lighting, an appropriate test target, several focuses including manual focus, same focal lengths, and a full range of f-stops.

Taking two snaps handheld in poor lighting at slow shutter speeds at different focal lengths of random camera boxes in a photo store and drawing any conclusions from that is just asking for it.

 

[ashon]

I believe Paul's response was to Jason, so there is no argument.

 

[Jason64167]

I reported that the 17-85 was sharper at ALL FOCAL LENGTHS that I shot with. I just happened to post crops from different focal lengths and had you zealots jump all over my case, like you are doing AGAIN.

Next you'll tell me my "test" (which wasn't a test but was just anecdotal comparison) was flawed because it wasn't shot at a newspaper or DOF chart with IS turned off, even if I would never use a tripod and never leave IS off for my needs.

All in all the "L" crowd seems a little over reactive on this... who does it hurt if someone thinks their 17-85 is sharper?

 

[SKumar]

85mm vs 70mm
70mm vs 50mm
50mm vs 35mm
40mm vs 24mm
... ????

What a joke!