Time to sell your 17-85 IS & 70-300 IS lens

[thw]

From
http://www.photozone.de/active/forum...2232146391338A

"The tested sample is SIGNIFICANTLY better than the 17-85.
It's still a plastic bomber though.

I expect the 55-250 to be a great performer as well (probably better than the 70-300 IS). The Canon MTFs look very good and it has a large(r) UD element."

The tested sample refers to the new 18-55 IS kit lens.

Sample images from the new kit lens: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...is/samples.htm

[thebeach]

Not sure about 55-250 IS. I'm also waiting for its release and see how it is. However, the price is much cheaper than other Canon IS lens, that would means its perfomance should not be expected high. Otherwise, Canon will face problem of selling other IS lens.

[thw]

Not quite. Optically, it can be very good despite the low price. Besides, Canon can always compromise on the built to reduce manufacturing costs. And if you've seen the optical performance of the Nikkor 55-200 VR lens, you'll know that low price does not equate poor performance. Canon has to make sacrifices in order to survive in this competitive market.

[spartacus.ret]

Originally Posted by thw I expect the 55-250 to be a great performer as well (probably better than the 70-300 IS). The Canon MTFs look very good and it has a large(r) UD element."

does it matter if it's larger?

and i think its too presumptuous to say that's they are better than the 1785IS and 70300IS now, without hard evidence. its all talk for now.

[calebk]

AFAIK, the 18-55 vs the 17-85 is not all talk and no evidence; The MTFs speak for themselves.

[AdyH]

Well wen i shoot or wen most people that i know who shoots, they dont really bother abt MTFs. Unless it's a brand new world out there.

It's actual daily practical performance tat matters. To me at least.

[spartacus.ret]

Originally Posted by AdyH It's actual daily practical performance tat matters. To me at least.

i concur. barrel distortions, focusing speed and accuracy, handling.

[sprewell]

I beg to differ. Its the photography that matters.Not the lens.

[Photo Nuts]

I can never understand this obsession with barrel distortion issue.

Pleeeeeze, of all lens issues, this is the simplest to correct.

But I agree that focusing speed and accuracy are of utmost importance.

[calebk]

Originally Posted by sprewell I beg to differ. Its the photography that matters.Not the lens.

One way or another, if you have a good photographer handling crappy equipment, there will be limitations; if you have a crappy photographer using good equipment, the shots will still be bad.

One can still produce good photos with limited equipment definitely, but given the fact that the 18-55 IS has been tried and proven to be sharper than the 17-85 IS, then why not give it a try, since it is comparatively cheaper (though a little plasticky in build).

[mpenza]

Originally Posted by calebk One way or another, if you have a good photographer handling crappy equipment, there will be limitations; if you have a crappy photographer using good equipment, the shots will still be bad. One can still produce good photos with limited equipment definitely, but given the fact that the 18-55 IS has been tried and proven to be sharper than the 17-85 IS, then why not give it a try, since it is comparatively cheaper (though a little plasticky in build).

could be copy variation too.

[ianpaice]

Give Roger Federer a wooden tennis racket you see he can beat Roddick or not.

Originally Posted by sprewell I beg to differ. Its the photography that matters.Not the lens.

[Redsun]

Originally Posted by ianpaice Give Roger Federer a wooden tennis racket you see he can beat Roddick or not.

he'll probably knock out roddick...............with the racket

a good photographer will be able to utilise his equipment to the maximum IMHO
he will be able to take good pics with a 18-55 as well as a 17-40
whats more,in this digital age,theres photoshop to easily correct distortions enhance colours and contrast etc.
1 thing that cannot be changed is the composition

[mcn]

tough call

Originally Posted by ianpaice Give Roger Federer a wooden tennis racket you see he can beat Roddick or not.

[ianpaice]

OK. Lets try this again. (Andy sucks)

Give Roger Federer a wooden tennis racket you see he can beat NADAL or not.

[sprewell]

hmmm sounds like this is escalating into a war but anyways..

Roger Federer is who he is because of his skills, his style, his grace on the court. Not his racket yeah?

[calebk]

Originally Posted by sprewell hmmm sounds like this is escalating into a war but anyways.. Roger Federer is who he is because of his skills, his style, his grace on the court. Not his racket yeah?

Perhaps we shall take it back to photography. Would you trust a wedding photographer shooting your wedding, using a 300D (not a bad camera, just a tad slow), with a kit lens (not a bad lens, just a tad slow in focusing and in aperture value), a 420EX (not a bad flash, just lacking a little punch), no other lenses (now we lack some variety), and only extra batteries for flash and camera, to capture vital moments?

I'm sure if he's experienced and all, he will be able to capture most of the important moments, but he will be tied down by equipment limitations quite badly.

[mervinb]

I own an 18-55mm IS, and also have the non-IS version.

When some posters (not just on ClubSnap, but elsewhere) talked about the 18-55mm being pretty good, they pooh-poohed it. When they're referred to the MTFs, they pooh-pooh MTFs. When provided sample shots, they pooh-pooh it.

Ok, if you feel the 17-85 IS is worth the extra bucks, great. However giving the buyer with a budget constraint the impression that the 18-55 IS is a *poor* lens is not right. The IS works really well (1/3 sec exposure is not difficult), the edge-to-edge resolution at full aperture, esp. on the 55m end is very good. It can deliver the goods, even though it doesn't have a metal mount, L glass, f2.8, etc.

To be very frank, I use it more often than my 70-200F4L IS. For me it's "good enough".

Now that Canon has thrown in distortion correction and CA correction for the 18-55mm IS FREE, it's incredible value. Like I've posted elsewhere, if the 55-250mm IS is anywhere as good, I might even start to regret paying the $$$ for my 70-200 IS

[peapilot]

Originally Posted by ianpaice OK. Lets try this again. (Andy sucks) Give Roger Federer a wooden tennis racket you see he can beat NADAL or not.

When you see him play tennis do you look at his play or the brand and make of his racket?

[Photo Nuts]

Originally Posted by mervinb Ok, if you feel the 17-85 IS is worth the extra bucks, great. However giving the buyer with a budget constraint the impression that the 18-55 IS is a *poor* lens is not right. The IS works really well (1/3 sec exposure is not difficult), the edge-to-edge resolution at full aperture, esp. on the 55m end is very good. It can deliver the goods, even though it doesn't have a metal mount, L glass, f2.8, etc. Now that Canon has thrown in distortion correction and CA correction for the 18-55mm IS FREE, it's incredible value. Like I've posted elsewhere, if the 55-250mm IS is anywhere as good, I might even start to regret paying the $$$ for my 70-200 IS

What you said is true.

If Canon came out with these lenses a year ago, I would have bought them in the twinkling of an eye. Now, I guess I'll just 'put up' with my expensive 17-55 f/2.8 IS and 70-200 f/4 IS.