- Messages
- 8,346
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ok, I currently find myself in the unique position of having just upgraded my 17-85 to the EFS 17-55 IS f2.8 (Thanks Kerso ). So now have both, a nifty 50 and a the 70-200 f2.8 IS
I thought it prudent to check out the 17-85 against the 17-55 to make sure that I've not been wasteful :bonk:
What I've tried to do is see how the 17-85 stacks up against the other lenses in my kit bag... Here goes.
The shots are all taken out of my bedroom window of the house across the street ('cos I'm off work with "manflu"). All taken in (in the space of 5 mins when the sun stayed out ) RAW, converted using the same settings and had the same USMask applied (1.9pix 100%). Hence as even as I could make the playing field. What I've posted are the webified 800x500pix [edit ... urm.. ohh no they arn't, but since are from another site should be OK] shots, but am commenting from the full size.
First off lets look at the "middle" range 50mm. Here the 17-85, 17-55 and nifty 50 all play on the same ground.
Firstly the 17-85 (@f4)
Secondly the 17-55 (@f5.6)
Lastly the nifty 50 (@f4)
So how do they stack up...
- The 17-85 is noticeably the softest of the 3. Also has less of a tonal range (see plants at bottom).
- As I'd expect the nifty50 has the edge over the 17-55 in sharpness, but its not as marked as the difference to the 17-85.
- Colour and contrast on the 17-X's are on a par, the nifty50 getting the upper hand here again.
Here's a crop/zoomin on the ariel in the top middle of the shot @100%
Left to right 17-85, 17-55, nifty 50
The 17-85 starts to show its blue underwear here as it fringes, the 17-55 has a tinge of red when compared against the nifty, but all of them hold up to scrutiny.
I thought it prudent to check out the 17-85 against the 17-55 to make sure that I've not been wasteful :bonk:
What I've tried to do is see how the 17-85 stacks up against the other lenses in my kit bag... Here goes.
The shots are all taken out of my bedroom window of the house across the street ('cos I'm off work with "manflu"). All taken in (in the space of 5 mins when the sun stayed out ) RAW, converted using the same settings and had the same USMask applied (1.9pix 100%). Hence as even as I could make the playing field. What I've posted are the webified 800x500pix [edit ... urm.. ohh no they arn't, but since are from another site should be OK] shots, but am commenting from the full size.
First off lets look at the "middle" range 50mm. Here the 17-85, 17-55 and nifty 50 all play on the same ground.
Firstly the 17-85 (@f4)
Secondly the 17-55 (@f5.6)
Lastly the nifty 50 (@f4)
So how do they stack up...
- The 17-85 is noticeably the softest of the 3. Also has less of a tonal range (see plants at bottom).
- As I'd expect the nifty50 has the edge over the 17-55 in sharpness, but its not as marked as the difference to the 17-85.
- Colour and contrast on the 17-X's are on a par, the nifty50 getting the upper hand here again.
Here's a crop/zoomin on the ariel in the top middle of the shot @100%
Left to right 17-85, 17-55, nifty 50
The 17-85 starts to show its blue underwear here as it fringes, the 17-55 has a tinge of red when compared against the nifty, but all of them hold up to scrutiny.