raydio
Senior Member
Nightpiper: I did not know this. What is your definition of "extensive" use in terms of number of actuation's?
Official Canon EOS 60D User Thread Part I
- Thread starter KHC
- Start date
Nightpiper: I did not know this. What is your definition of "extensive" use in terms of number of actuation's?
Admittedly, although images from the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens have sharp corners, they are not as good as the kit lens (18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS). So, it's not perfect.
But no way are they so bad that it'll lead you to say: "But if this shot was taken with the 17-55mm F2.8, i can't even see the bin proper even if its juz 5m away." You must have a really BAD copy that needs fixing, and I am not even sure if CSC in Singapore has the expertise to fix it for you. Honestly.
However, if you can get hold of a great copy, then, in the words of this Nikon lens reviewer at Photozone:
"Unlike Canon, which offers the undisputed king in this lens class with the EF-S 17-55/2.8 USM IS, Nikon does not offer a lens that combines speed, stabilization and high end performance in a single lens. "
Yes, the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS is the undisputed king in its class with really high optical performance... as long as you can get hold of a good copy. Even the-digital-picture has an awful copy they use in their review (see the difference between their results and those published in Photozone).
Last edited:
nightpiper
Senior Member
Juz for discussion sake. I again dun agree with the points. 1st of all, i dun take what someone test to conclude the above theory. Here's what i see:
The same shot if taken by the 17-55 (@55mm end), i'll need to move closer to have an equiv FOV from the 100mm. Assuming i get the size of the bin & lamp post right & framing is exact, 2 things u'll noticed.
1) There is less drain slabs on the ground compared vs the one shot with 100mm lens.
2) Most important point, the curve created by the drain going towards the bin will be much less due to point 1 above. So the effect of the final pic is greatly affected.
Lets turn it around & say we use a FF vs a crop. Standing on the same spot w/o moving, the 80mm lens will "pull" (perspective) the bin closer & the crop with a 50mm is further. The perspective of the final image will also be different. Juz like u use a 85mm & a 135mm for portrait. Even if they were shot at the same F-stop, the final outcome looks different. As much as u feel there's no diff, in reality focal length does comes into the equation, same thing applies to 35mm on crop vs 50mm on FF. The 35mm shud see even bigger difference due to it being a wide angle & has more distortion than the 50mm.
Sorry, obviously my definition is very different from urs. My extensive use refers to physically touching & turning the lens (& occasion some knocks too). Its beyond me to convert my definition into pressing of a button or shutter flapping up & down. But i have never drop the lens mind u. When my lens starts to show problems, i know straight away, believe me. :lovegrin:
nightpiper
Senior Member
U mean kit lens has better quality than the 17-55??? Shocked is an understatement for me. Lets not argue about this & let the pic do the talking. I'll juz do a simple before & after comparison. Make of it what u like
Before: When the lens was brand new 2 yrs ago
100% crop at the bottom corner
After: Shot in Oct this yr
100% crop of the tip. The body is perfectly sharp & detailed though.
I did admit the lens is off calibration & needs fixing, i dun give myself delusions, when a good lens has problems, i ack & get it fix. The barrel is a little shaky as well, add to it there's lens creep too, so i dun foresee after servicing it'll be like brand new. Let's face it, this ain't L quality, again lets not kid ourselves.
raydio
Senior Member
I understand your perspective very well now and agree with your argument. Although I am somewhat dismayed that a relatively expensive lens like the 17-55 could deteriorate so quickly.
I like your comparison of the before and after shots. With respect to the Eiffel Tower photo however, could the blurriness of the 100% crop be attributable to the vibration and wind gusts of the nearby traffic (I'm assuming that you're using a tripod)? Also, depending on the wind conditions at the top level of the tower, they could also cause some blurriness particularly if the shutter speed is relatively slow (I am assuming a slow shutter speed due to the night sky).
Last edited:
raydio
Senior Member
I just checked the EXIF information on your two photos and now realize that they were taken by two different cameras. The first one taken by a Canon 40D and the second by a 60D. Also, the 60D photo (Eiffel Tower) had a 10 second shutter speed and could be subject to wind gusts and street vibration.
While I appreciate your argument, I do not feel that it is a conclusive test. Nonetheless, you present a interesting argument which would have been strengthened if the variables between the two photos were closer (ie. same 40D, same lens, same camera settings, same subject landscape and same environmental conditions). Then we could really appreciate how much the 17-55 lens has deteriorated with respect to it calibration over time.
Do you still have your 40D? Would you be able to replicate the 1st photo under similarly fine weather conditions? I for one, would be really interested in seeing these results.
BTW: Nice photos!
While I appreciate your argument, I do not feel that it is a conclusive test. Nonetheless, you present a interesting argument which would have been strengthened if the variables between the two photos were closer (ie. same 40D, same lens, same camera settings, same subject landscape and same environmental conditions). Then we could really appreciate how much the 17-55 lens has deteriorated with respect to it calibration over time.
Do you still have your 40D? Would you be able to replicate the 1st photo under similarly fine weather conditions? I for one, would be really interested in seeing these results.
BTW: Nice photos!
You need to do proper side-by-side testing to see for yourself.
I finally see where your problem is. You are allowing your personal prejudices to cloud your judgment BEFORE you even do any proper side-by-side testing.
Here's my 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens compared to the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens from my workplace. Tripod mounted, manual focus under 10x magnified live view, identical exposure, same 7D camera etc etc.
The scene at ISO 100, 18mm, f/3.5, 1/160 sec. Note the aperture is wide open for the kit lens.
Center sharpness. 17-55 f/2.8 IS left and 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens right
Corner sharpness. 17-55 f/2.8 IS left and 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens right.
When stopped down to f/8. 17-55 f/2.8 IS left and 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens right.
Except for folks who have good copies of both lenses and tested them side-by-side without prejudices, most are shocked by the results. Yup, a $100 lens giving a $1500 lens a good kick in the butt.
Note however the IS kit lens has poorer colors and contrast. But resolution wise, it is top notch... beating out many expensive primes and L lenses.
If your shot was not affected by motion (10 sec exposure), then, obviously, your lens needs fixing... MAJOR. But you must stop allowing your prejudices to cloud your judgment before that.
Last edited:
raydio
Senior Member
I have to admit... I am shocked and dismayed over these results! I believe that the 17-55 has an edge in sharpness in the centre of the photo, but I am painfully aware that it's corner sharpness is less than desirable when compared to the "lessor" kit lens. When I have time, I will have to test my own 17-55 lens and see if my results are the same.
Anthony Lee
Senior Member
The most accurate way to do lens resolution test is to shoot an ISO test chart under controlled environment. Human eyes will not be able to detact such minor differences even when you blow it up to normal viewing sizes on the computer monitor. Color, contrast and subject rendering(point of interest) in the photo is more discernable. Today's DSLR and kit lenses are already superb and lenses like the 17-55f2.8 and L lenses are sometimes very unnecessary. I have only one AF lens which I use only when I need AF like a recent family gathering. It's a 20 year old Tokina 28-70f2.6-2.8 and my golly, it can still shoot very nice photos on my 5D. If you guys pixel peep like you do, nothing may satisfy you.
I have tested the 60D with the 18-55 kit, 18-270 Tamron, 50f1.8, 17-55f2.8, 70-200f4 IS, and my whole range of manual focus lenses, from 21mm to 200mm, and if not for the final color rendering, I would have sold my 5D and just use the 60D with either the kit lens or a Tamron 17-50 and maintain my whole range of manual focus lenses. So like I said before, just go out and enjoy the 60D, it's the best value DSLR in its class.
I have tested the 60D with the 18-55 kit, 18-270 Tamron, 50f1.8, 17-55f2.8, 70-200f4 IS, and my whole range of manual focus lenses, from 21mm to 200mm, and if not for the final color rendering, I would have sold my 5D and just use the 60D with either the kit lens or a Tamron 17-50 and maintain my whole range of manual focus lenses. So like I said before, just go out and enjoy the 60D, it's the best value DSLR in its class.
Well said :thumbsup:
In fact I am pretty surprised that this thread have turned into a 17-55 f2.8 thread.....isn't this a 60D thread :think: Makes me feel so lousy to own the 17-55 f2.8....but hey, I did not experience any of the bad images that you guys put up here. Was a lousy copy used in all the comparison? For me, this is the only lens I have now. All my other lenses were sold off because they just pale in comparison to this great lens
Anyway, having used this camera for about a week, just like what brother Radio said, no complaints at all. I don't know what is the fuss of many forumers who criticise this camera like mad!! I think if you are already using 40D, 50D or 7D, the next upgrade if you are so critical, should be FF or the 1D series....PERIOD!!! Please don't come and criticise this great camera, which is absolutely value for money.
Back to this camera....there are so many great functions that anytime I discovered one, I can take one whole day to explore that 1 function. Simply love this camera. It is an excellent upgrade for me personally, from my 550D
nightpiper
Senior Member
I know the difference between vibration & edge softness. As i already mentioned, the body is perfectly sharp & detailed. Here's a crop of of the body.
I just checked the EXIF information on your two photos and now realize that they were taken by two different cameras. The first one taken by a Canon 40D and the second by a 60D. Also, the 60D photo (Eiffel Tower) had a 10 second shutter speed and could be subject to wind gusts and street vibration.
While I appreciate your argument, I do not feel that it is a conclusive test. Nonetheless, you present a interesting argument which would have been strengthened if the variables between the two photos were closer (ie. same 40D, same lens, same camera settings, same subject landscape and same environmental conditions). Then we could really appreciate how much the 17-55 lens has deteriorated with respect to it calibration over time.
Do you still have your 40D? Would you be able to replicate the 1st photo under similarly fine weather conditions? I for one, would be really interested in seeing these results.
BTW: Nice photos!
1st & foremost, i want to clarify, i didn't in any point said that it's a scientific or proper comparison.
I really dun understand u guys. If a lens has developed issue due to wear & tear over time, does it even make a difference what cam body u put it on? Do u even need to go to the extend of a side by side comparison to determine the lens has developed issue due to usage? When u use the lens often, u'll know automatically, its like how well u know ur family members.
I'm not here to convince any of u guys here nor will i try to, i know what i'm talking about & yes, for the 3rd time, i'm repeating myself... i intend to send in my 17-55 for servicing hopefully before this xmas. And doodah, looking at ur sample, i also recommend u to send in for a check, urs looks worse than mine when i 1st had it.
Lastly, the EFs lenses r not build like the L series. So quick deterioration is to be expected if u use it often. But this shud not stop anyone from getting the 17-55 for their crop sensor DSLR. Its still a good lens & i still use it irregardless. :cheers:
This is still a 60D thread, its juz that we were discussing about nice lenses to go with this new toy :lovegrin: What is worth ur money?
raydio
Senior Member
Nightpiper: I am not doubting you... you know your own equipment best. My only interest is understanding the extent of the deterioration by eliminating all variables. I have a vested interest.... I own a 17-55 myself and I just want to be prepared.
Anyway, enough about this. At the very least you've made me aware of an issue that was unknown to me. I appreciate your pointing it out. It is something that I will continue to monitor.
Errr... you have NOT shown any photo to reveal lens performance in the EXTREME corners (NOT just the edges). Show a similar shot or brickwall test first, then we'll talk. I back up my claims about the performance of the 18-55 IS kit lens with REAL images, not empty talk. Besides, after removal of CA, its corners are not too different from what you get with the 100 macro lens.
BTW, my lens has been sent for servicing but it's for a different thing (and it's actually my fault).
Interestingly, Amateur Photography recently reviewed the 60D, D7000 and A55. The scores are respectively 86/100, 85/100 and 84/100. Surprises me quite a bit.
Last edited:
The most common complaint about the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens is the IS unit failing after some use. Looks like Canon builds all their non-L lenses with rather mediocre quality. I will never forget the portrait issue in the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS lens... unbelievable... loose optical elements?.... sigh...
Last edited:
nightpiper
Senior Member
Frankly i dun shoot brick walls. I shoot memories & photographs, brick walls is neither. If u can't accept that my lens has deteriorated, thats your problem. The only way to really measure whether the lens has issue now vs brand new, is to go back in time.
So juz for u, i'll make an exception to shoot brick walls. Pass me a time machine to go back so that i can shoot with the brand new lens vs the 2yrs later ver. It has to be at the same time, same place, same light, same scene, same eveything to equalise all those variables. When u have the time machine, pm me, i promise u i'll drop everything i'm doing juz to shoot the brick walls so as to proof to u the lens has indeed deteriorated.
Pls also remind me to give my old self a pat on the back for getting a good copy.
The 60D is a pretty capable cam. I'll be surprise if AP rates it any lower than 80/100.
If u can't accept that my lens has deteriorated, thats your problem.
The 60D is a pretty capable cam. I'll be surprise if AP rates it any lower than 80/100.
You got it all wrong. I totally believe your lens has deteriorated. I am not at all surprised by poor built in Canon non-L lenses, especially since I have been burnt myself (portrait issue in 70-300 IS). I just don't think it's possible for anyone to have better extreme corner sharpness with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens wide-open. Reason is the image results I post above are consistent with Photozone results. All other tests have only revealed worse extreme corner sharpness, not better.
I am mostly taken aback that AP has graded 60D higher than both D7000 and A55.
nightpiper
Senior Member
Sorry, my apologies, the Before & After shot were both done with F8. Imagine what wud it be like at F2.8 wide open. Further imagine it at F2.8 repeating the same bin shot. :sweat: :sweat:
Aiya, the AP ratings r juz too close to be of any significance, if 60D is 86 & they rate D7000 at 79, i wud be very very surprised. :bigeyes: I really think Canon has a winner with this 60D
16mm definitely already wide enough
Anyway, when my 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens comes back, I'll report how the service went. The first time I sent the lens in, they fixed the zoom barrel but also misaligned the optical elements, and the performance at the telephoto end was similar to what you showed above. :angry: So, it's gone for a second round of service. From my past experience with CSC (70-300 IS portrait issue, 10-22 decentered elements), I have little hope it'll come back OK in the second round. But I'll see... hope I don't have to scream at them again... :dunno: What a...
In the meanwhile, we can come back to the topic at hand... the 60D.
Last edited:
Anthony Lee
Senior Member
Just learnt at Canon Rumours that Canon has patented a new 24-105F3.5-5.6 IS. In line with the 15-85, I suppose the only way to make AF faster and more accurate, the lens elements have to be made lighter, and thus the possible new 24-105L may be also a variable aperture lens. Not much of a problem as they keep on improving high ISO usability. But I wonder what the future lens build quality will be. Use and throw lens?
Similar threads
