Feedback on Canon EF-S 17-85MM IS USM?
- Thread starter jeryltan
- Start date
- Status
speedblade
Senior Member
maybe it depends on whether you like to pixel peep? i did like the convenience and "relatively" small size. But i dropped the idea after some sample pics. (OOPS! i just admitted i like to pixel peep .... ah shux!)
There's a review of the 17-85mm in the following link...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-85mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-85mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Tks bro.. Will take a look..
ykia said:There's a review of the 17-85mm in the following link...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-85mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
speedblade
Senior Member
jeryltan said:
I think you'll do fine with the 17-85.
BUT, if you really must know (From Luminous Lanscape):
Imagine a camera system that produces stunning image quality. Wall sized prints without grain or noise are possible, and both resolution and contrast are outstanding. Colour rendition is highly accurate and optical defects are virtually non-extent.
Now imagine another camera. This one is small enough to fit in ones coat pocket yet has easy to use, intuitive controls. Everything works beautifully. The manual hardly needs to be opened. Battery life is measured in days not hours, and all of the necessary technical functions, like autofocus, metering and shooting speed are exceptional in capability.
If you could choose just one of these cameras, which one would it be? The one that produces incredible image quality, or the one that almost works telepathically?
Of course this is a silly question. A camera that produces great images but that has the user interface of an ox cart is almost useless, and a superbly designed instrument that produces images that look like they came from a $15 Holga isn't what most people would settle for either.
Yet, time after time we see photographers fixated on one aspect or another though usually biased toward the image-qualtity-above-all approach, often to the exclusion of rational discourse. Those whom I have called pixel peepers are satisfied with nothing less than an intimate dissection of a camera / lens' abilities (always at 100% pixel magnification), without regard for whether or not perceived optical defects are even actually visible in real world prints.
Which brings us back to the hypothetical question about which camera would you prefer. The answer is, of course, that the ideal camera is one that combines the best mix of traits from both Column A and Column B. It needs to be able to produce the highest quality images, yet also be a device that does it's best to stay out of the way while doing its job well. As with most things in life a compromise.
Does the ideal camera exist? No, of course not. But some are better than others in bringing off the ideal mix, and the same one is not necessarily the best for everyone. For example, the photographer who is overwhelming interested is image quality, and who doesn't shoot either a great deal or in difficult circumstances, will likely be happier selecting a camera that displays the finest images even if it means putting up with some operational annoyances.
Others will value functionality, speed, reliability or convenience, even if it means possibly tolerating reduced image quality. That's why there are 8X10 view cameras as well as pocket digicams. It's a big world, and as photographers we have many choices to make.
TrailsofLife
Senior Member
I used this lens for 1 year plus for events...IS is a bonus when indoor, with ambient light or shooting slow shutter speed with flash, but dun depend too much on it. USM is really what makes it stand out among its competitors. Fast AF is important when shooting events like weddings, ROMs or prize presentation etc, so you won't miss any important moment. Also 28-135 is enough for most shoots.
Although not the sharpest lens, its overall performance is more than satisfaction. If not because I moved to FF, I would not have sold it.
Now still looking for its equivilant at a economical price tag
Hope this helps:thumbsup:
Although not the sharpest lens, its overall performance is more than satisfaction. If not because I moved to FF, I would not have sold it.
Now still looking for its equivilant at a economical price tag
Hope this helps:thumbsup:
Okay so much mention about IS, but I think IS just stop camera shake, but if subject shake, whatever IS you have will not help much. Personally I will prefer a faster camera with at least f2.8. For wedding, sometime a 50mm f1.8 will do the job pretty well. I have shoot 2 weddings with just 2 prime lens (20mm f 2.8 and 50mm f1.8) on 2 cameras(both equipment borrowed). Result is great, even without flash.
Tks for the feedback.. BTW, I assume FF means Film Format? If so, the equivalent I think is EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Here's the review for you.. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Here's the review for you.. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Max 2.8 said:I used this lens for 1 year plus for events...IS is a bonus when indoor, with ambient light or shooting slow shutter speed with flash, but dun depend too much on it. USM is really what makes it stand out among its competitors. Fast AF is important when shooting events like weddings, ROMs or prize presentation etc, so you won't miss any important moment. Also 28-135 is enough for most shoots.
Although not the sharpest lens, its overall performance is more than satisfaction. If not because I moved to FF, I would not have sold it.
Now still looking for its equivilant at a economical price tag
Hope this helps:thumbsup:
TrailsofLife
Senior Member
jeryltan said:Tks for the feedback.. BTW, I assume FF means Film Format? If so, the equivalent I think is EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Looking for something more within my needs now, Now I like f2.8 more than IS now
erm... i think he meant FF as Full Frame.. not film format..
jeryltan said:Tks for the feedback.. BTW, I assume FF means Film Format? If so, the equivalent I think is EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
- Status