disapointed in new 17-85 EF-S IS

[Edward In Toronto]

Beautiful results, and is it with one pass sharpening as a last step in you Post Processing?

What lens and what camera DuxX?

EOS 350D and Sigma 24-70 F2.8 EX DG Macro

 

[sankaty]

The Tamron is a great lens. If you don't think you'll miss the 17-27mm range, or you have another wide-angle lens that you don't mind carrying around when needed, then I think you'll love the Tamron.

I decided that I really wanted the true wide-angle range in my walk-around lens. I have the luxury of having both lenses, and I do use them both (the Tamron is especially useful indoors).

In my view, the main advantage of the Tamron over the Canon is speed. It's sharper, too, but I think the Canon is plenty sharp, especially in the range where the Tamron and Canon overlap, so this is not a critical difference to me.

The Canon focuses faster, but the Tamron is fine, too, for most applications.

Good luck!
James

Nice images!

I have been trying to decide between the Tamron and the Canon. I
had decided on the Tamron. Now you have gone and confused me
again...

 

[DuxX]

Beautiful results, and is it with one pass sharpening as a last
step in you Post Processing?

Thanks...

Yep. I make one pass low level sharpening in PS-USM because I don't use it in camera. Just that.

Best regards,
DuxX

 

[Blake]

Had it for a few weeks, but wasn't happy. In the end, I returned it and got the combination of the Sigma 18-50 2.8 for walk-around and the Tamron 28-75 as a general purpose people lens.

In all fairness, I had both the above lenses calibrated by their manufactures to get optimum performance. Maybe I could have done the same with the Canon, but it still would have been a slow lens. The IS was nice, but I like the speed of the Sigma and Tamron better.

--
Blake

 

[DuxX]

I may have had technique.

Err, that would be BAD technique. Along with bad typing.

... hold on JAR... with selfcritical behavior!

What camera you have? Did you try to pick AF point manually? What about manual focus?

Regards,
DuxX

 

[iann]

I understand how you feel. I was going exchange the lens at a local shop and they asured me the quality was not as bad as the Lens i got. So after going through 15 different copies (instore) of the 17-85 IS...i finally found a good copy. Quality control is very bad with this lens. It is an average lens to begin with ...but up untill the new 24-105L came out it was the only lens in the canon line with a large "walk around" range. Im glad to say I finally have a sharp copy now...

 

[cw]

OK. Here are a couple new test shots. The first is an old garage shot at f/8 for 1/80 sec, ISO of 100. 33mm is the focal length.

Second test shot is f/5.6 for 1/60 second, ISO 100, 17mm.

Both are 100% crops shot as JPG with sharpness set to +2. Center focus was used on both. No post production. Please share your thoughts. Also, thanks for all the help so far!





CW

 

[roger55]

CW,

What mode was your camera set on for these 2 shots?

 

[thw]

Don't you need to be very close to the subject to achieve that?
This lens won't focus very closely.

Yes, there's a limit. But remember (i) the butterfly is bigger than the bee captured by the other poster(ii) I did crop the photo.

She seemed quite willing to accommodate me, and the likely outcomes
are a replacement specimen, or a trade-in for another, better,
lens. I'm willing to accept a replacement, and give it a try
before unequivocally condeming this lens beyond redemption.

Try other (good) lens. Now, if you also have issues with those lenses, your camera may need some calibration.

On that batch issue, as I'd bought mine in July, I'd expect any
current stock to be much newer in terms of manufacture date.

Good thing.

the wrong way, but really, and let's be honest here, how hard is it
for a consumer-grade lens to take a decent, sharp picture without
requiring the shooter to hold an engineering degree or to be a
clone of Ansel Adams?

LOL. It shouldn't be difficult. I am not a Canon fanatic so I will readily admit to Canon QC issues (actually, it happens to almost all manufacturers these days).

 

[cw]

Hi.

The garage was shot with shutter priority and Sarah was shot aperture priority.

CW

 

[roger55]

Also, are the crops cropped from the center of the photos?

 

[roger55]

CW,

I think that the 2 photos look sharper than the others you have posted.

However, both look slightly underexposed which I think tends to make them look slightly softer than would be otherwise.

The door shot looks like a corner crop to me from the distortion on the door and a softer look in the corner of the crop (although it is very dark in that upper left corner and it makes that hard to tell).

I would have like to seen fill-flash used on the shot of Sarah. With that bright backgound, her being a little underexposed is not unusual.

Not sure why the door looks underexposed.

Check to make sure you haven't accidentally set a negative exposure compensation setting. (I have done this before.)

Anyway, I would like to see a couple of better exposed shots before I made a comment about your lens.

 

[cw]

The one of Sarah is pretty much a center crop. The garage is the right top corner quadrant.

I'll see if I can get you some better exposed shots.

CW

 

[JohnJ80]

I'm curious why for a $600 lens you aren't sending it back or in for repair if such a big piece of its range it is not that great. I guess my expectation would be that it would be sharp throughout the range with maybe some slack given for just at very wide and very long. Everywhere else, it should be performing well - especially for what this thing costs.

For example, I run my sharpness at nominal (or less) and turn the contrast all the way down (350D). Most of my favorite lenses (sigma 18-50 f/2.8, tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and canon 70-200 f/4L) require only levels in PSE out of the camera and, at most, very mild sharpening. On the 70-200 f/4, I don't sharpen at all since it seems I can't improve on it - and my shots seem very sharp to me. The only time I have to add more is if the subject is mildly OOF and I'm trying to save the shot.

I do notice that I have to do more sharpening with my 28-135 USM IS, which is a considerably poorer lens than the three above.

J.

1. At 17-24, not quite sharp but ok. It's the weakest focal range.

2. At 35-70, quite sharp in general.

Landscape pics
Quite sharp.

Portrait pics
I switch to Portrait mode, the pics are very sharp (indoor and
outdoor, with and w/o flash). Focusing is very accurate. Most of
them are wide open (f5 - f5.6)

3. At 85, reasonably sharp. Didn't test this range that much.
But I believe it would be weaker than the middle ranges.

I use the 350D default parameter 1 preset: con +1, shp +1, sat +1.
Nothing special.

Hi.

Addmittedly, I have not taken too many shots yet, but my test shots
on my new 17-85 EF-S IS are not very sharp. Most of my tests were
in dim light at f/5.6 or f/8 and ISO 800. However, indoor shots in
light were also not very sharp.

Any ideas?

CW

--

'Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.' -
Mark Twain

(equip in profile)

 

[roger55]

sorry, meant upper RIGHT corner.

CW,

I think that the 2 photos look sharper than the others you have
posted.
However, both look slightly underexposed which I think tends to
make them look slightly softer than would be otherwise.

The door shot looks like a corner crop to me from the distortion on
the door and a softer look in the corner of the crop (although it
is very dark in that upper left corner and it makes that hard to
tell).

I would have like to seen fill-flash used on the shot of Sarah.
With that bright backgound, her being a little underexposed is not
unusual.

Not sure why the door looks underexposed.
Check to make sure you haven't accidentally set a negative exposure
compensation setting. (I have done this before.)

Anyway, I would like to see a couple of better exposed shots before
I made a comment about your lens.

 

[cw]

A couple fresh shots. First is the garage in the alley behind my house. Shot at 1/8 shutter priority, f/16, ISO 100, 85mm.

Second is indoors in my messy home office. Again, 1/8 shutter priority, f/4, ISO 100, 17mm.

These are the full image (no crop). No post production, just in camera sharpening +2, as suggested.

While these are not inspiring photos, please help me figure out my lens and/or technique. Thanks!

CW

 

[roger55]

CW,

I have emailed Jason Hutchinson to see if he could help out here.

Let's hang tight and see if he is willing to lend is thoughts. He has a lot of experience with this lens.

Btw, I have this lens on order with Dell and that is why I am highly interested in this situation. I would also like to see you resolve your issues with this lens.

Roger

 

[cw]

Just for kicks, I took a few quick picks with my 50mm f/1.8 prime. Unfortunately, my battery died, so i only got a couple. This was taken with the sun nearly down behind me at F/1.8, 1/40 shutter, ISO 100.

CW

 

[cw]

Heck. I just looked at that pick again and it is out of focus. When my battery recharges, I'll shoot some shots with the 50mm. I admit I was trying to hurry as I knew I only had a minute or so with the battery. I tent to get a lot of clear, sharp pics with it, though.

CW

 

[cw]

Here's another example from my 50mm.