Same IQ from 17-55 is as on 50mm 1.8 prime

futureal33

futureal33

Messages
2,390
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Basically....

I love the IQ of my 50mm 1.8 prime lens, every single photo I take with it I am really pleased with. I love the DOF, sharpness, quick focusing etc.... its just an all round brilliant lens..

I am considering upgrading my kit lens (18-55 IS) to the Canon 17-55 IS 2.8 - and am just wondering if that zoom lens will take as good pictures as my 50mm prime?

When I say "as good" I mean in terms of IQ, Sharpness, DOF (2.8 vs 1.8), focusing, colours etc...

Thanks for any help :)

This for example - taken this evening, no PP done at all. My kit lens wouldnt create anything like this, so will the 17-55 2.8 be able to?

 
Last edited:
futureal33 - not the best example image but it's a start :)

The 17-55 is as close to 'L' quality as it gets so the tester's results agree. I think the only reason it doesn't have an L designation is because it's EF-S so can't be used across its pro range of bodies.

The obvious differences between the zoom and you 50mm are A) smaller size and lighter weight on the 50mm, and B) it's got a faster maximum aperture so shallower DoF wide open. Other than that, I think most people will agree that the 17-55mm will be as good, if not better (because of its versatility and superb optical quality), than a £100 prime.
 
That pic is a bit off mate, do you have any other shots you've taken with it? Its a hard lens to master and a good one to practise with is the 50mm
 
A few points:

1. One lens won't take pictures as well as another, it's you that takes the pictures... If you're cunning enough, you could probably get that shot in a number of different ways :D

2. At 50mm, if you stop down, you probably won't be able to tell the difference using each lens. At f/2.8, the prime will probably be sharper, as it's optimised for that focal length, and is stopped down a little.

3. The prime is much better at f/1.8 ;)

4. The zoom is much better at 17mm. And 18mm. And 19mm....

So really it depends how you use it! The photo above has a little bit of motion blur, probably due to the relatively slow 1/30 shutter speed (and birds can move pretty quickly!). The light must have been pretty poor as you were already at ISO 800, so you'd have needed a shutter speed of over 1/15 with the 17-55, meaning if you'd used that lens there would be significant blurring, unless you upped the iso and introduced more noise.

Anyway, I'm rambling. I guess you need to realise they're different lenses, designed for different things, and therefore quite tricky to compare! And anyway, why would you need two lenses that could take the exact same picture ;) :)
 
Last edited:
I can't see your Exif but I have read the 50mm 1.8 is soft wide open.

Using The Digital Picture, the sharpness between both lenses looks more identical at f2.8, the 50mm being softer until this aperture then better at this aperture - based on my interpretation of the charts. Of course you will loose on DoF potential with one lens and flexbility with the other as said by Chris and Specialman

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2


Andy
 
I've owned both and the 50 is much sharper at 2.8 than my copy of the zoom was. They're both brilliant at what they do though.
 
Thanks the replies, and I appreciate the help...
I think the thing I like most about the 50mm f1.8 is the colour representation.... that pic above has no PP done at all and it is saturated with colours. I will take the same pic tonight (if my parrot is complying!) with my kit lens, but my guess is that the colours will be no where near as vibrant!

Would the 17-55 make a better job of it?
 
Would have been disappointed with that from my Sigma 17-70 and the 17-55 is a notch or two better
 
OK, I don't have many pictures from the 17-55 wide open, but here's one. It's not brilliant as it was a grab shot.


Coffee by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

And here's one from a stdio session:


Vicki05 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

Since having the 17-55 I've hardly used my 50mm.

Steve
 
I've owned the 50mm f/1.8 and found it to be a nice lens. Iq is very good but the focusing speed and accuracy in low light forced me to get a 50mm f/1.4.
I wouldn't say there was much in it as far as IQ gores but my 50mm f/1.4 is more reliable.
My main lens is a 17-55IS and to my eyes its as good as my 50mm. so good in fact that like Steve, i hardly ever use the prime now.
There are other factors though. Full time MF, IS a bigger range all add up to a more versatile lens, but with the IQ very, very close to a prime.

I agree with the others, that bird picture is soft and i wouldn't base any buying decisions on that image (as nice as it is) but it is a very capable lens.

Here's a shot from my 17-55IS f/2.8 wide open. Not SOOC though as i always shoot raw.
658656534_MNJjT-L-1.jpg


and this is at f/4.
479865432_Yg29n-L.jpg
 
Last edited:
Wow nice pics there, very impressed!

I will attempt tonight to recreate my prior picture - one with the 50mm and one with my 18-55mm and post my results, however I think that the 50mm prime will produce the colours better....

In your experience do/did you find the colour representation between the 50mm (1.4 or 1.8) prime to be greater than the 17-55 IS, or was there nothing in it?

Have you had chance to compare the 17-55 vs the 18-55 IS kit lens?
 
Thanks.
I must admit ive never seen a difference in colour between Canon lenses but ive never actually looked for it.
As i always shoot Raw i tend to correct the WB after ive taken the shot so its a non issue for me.
I would be surprised if there is a noticeable difference that tweaking couldnt sort out.

In camera you can set custom WB but also set a bias in the WB settings, so you can compensate if you are seeing a tint. This setting works well and affects all WB modes other than Custom (IIR).

Ive not done any comparisons between my 17-55IS and the kit lens, although i do have a few images shot by my boss with the kit lens on my PC and they all look pretty good.

I mean no offence but to me your picture looks like it has a WB problem. It looks too yellow to my eyes and this will make things look a bit softer than they really are.
If i was you i would lock the WB before re taking tonight's shots, just to rule out any change in WB due to the camera seeing the scene differently.

Here are the Photozone lens tests, this might help.
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/564-canon50f14ff
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/415-canon_50_18_ff
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/425-canon_1755_28is_50d
 
Last edited:
Dave,

As a better example picture, how would you rate this:
photo-5.jpg


Unfortunately it has been doctored slightly in LR, just to give the washed out tone (think the effect was called Bleach out or something...) but for the actual sharpness etc that hasnt been altered.

That was taken with my 50mm 1.8

The light where the first picture was taken is very yellow, overhead halogens, so its probably accurate for the scene, although I agree - it does look a little yellowy.

What I cant get my head around and decide is, is the 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM sufficiently better than the 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS kit lens to warrant forking out an extra £750+.....when with that money I could buy myself a shortish prime (24mm/28mm) which is the range a lot of my photography seems to take place at, and also purchase a 100mm F2 for the longer range shots.

Going to be running a few tests later me thinks :)

50mm 1.8 @ 50mmm,f5.6
vs
18-55mm @ 50mm, f5.6

To see which produces the nicest, most vibrant image
 
I still don't think you've cracked it to be honest. I wouldn't call that a sharp picture, you have to be quick with the 50mm, you can't afford to have a long pause between focusing and releasing the shutter.
 
I come across like a right rotter, but not impressed with that picture either especially for sharpness, did you shoot it hand held?

Would expect better from my 17-55, so my answer would be yes it is worth it
 
I'm on my iPod touch so I expect I'm seeing it differently to the rest of you but I think that image is sharp, but it looks like the DOF is too narrow and most of it does look out of focus.
The foremost part of the image seems to have the focus point.

I think only the person buying it can say if it's worth the extra cost. I would definitely say it's more useful than the kit lens. Once you use a fixed aperture zoom lens you get very spoiled.
 
futureal33 said:
Yeah it was shot hand held - 1/25 IIRC, cant remember the other settings and the exif data has vanished thanks to saving it to my iPhone then uploading it!

When you say you have to be quick... do you mean that if you move a tiny little bit it loses focus? or does the lens "lose" focus over time?
Click to expand...

No I mean the former, you have as soon as the camera focuses you have to click, that reduces chance of blur. It is a durable lens and I wasn't insinuating it deteriorates over time. I would personally keep it as a good practise lens and upgrade your kit to something else
 
Bit slow shutter speed for hand held I reckon and the focus point can shift fractionally too

Maybe try back button focusing and raise the speed a bit, rule of thumb would say 1/50 at 50mm
 
tijuana taxi said:
Bit slow shutter speed for hand held I reckon and the focus point can shift fractionally too

Maybe try back button focusing and raise the speed a bit, rule of thumb would say 1/50 at 50mm
Click to expand...

Agreed, i would also suggest stopping down a bit to help with the DOF as this will also give the impression of it being more in focus. This will of course mean upping the ISO but noise really wont be a problem, especially if your using LR3.3
 
Ok, taken a few more pics tonight, still not sure they are totally sharp!

Photographed a 100% stationary object, and that seems sharp enough (at F11) - lower seemed very soft around the edges of the subject.

50mm 1.8 @ f5.6

Canon 50mm 1.8 by futureal33, on Flickr

100% Crop of the above

Canon 50mm 1.8 100% Crop by futureal33, on Flickr

18-55mm IS 3.5-5.6 @ 50mm f5.6

Canon 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 @ 50mm f5.6 by futureal33, on Flickr

100% Crop of the above

Canon 18-55mm IS 3.5-5.6 @ 50mm 5.6 100% Crop by futureal33, on Flickr

Much prefer the IQ and sharpness of the 50mm 1.8 over the kit lens on these examples..


I also tried to photo my parrot again, unfortunately she was sat on a swinging object and keeping it totally still was impossible... so I raised the ISO, lowered the shutter speed and shot at f1.8 - still a bit soft :(


IMG_0693 by futureal33, on Flickr


IMG_0693 crop by futureal33, on Flickr

Any recommendations..? or is this down to the movement of the subject?

Also this plant... no matter what I did, I couldnt get the stamen in focus... I was focusing in on the nearest white stamen and although the camera seemed to focus on them fine... as you can see on the 100% crop its totally OOF?!

All shot with my 50mm 1.8 on a tripod, shot timer mode ON (2 sec)
 
Bravo! Much better!! :)

Did you choose your focus point on the flower?? Any other shot info?

These are much better
 
Last edited:
futureal33 said:
Basically....

I love the IQ of my 50mm 1.8 prime lens, every single photo I take with it I am really pleased with. I love the DOF, sharpness, quick focusing etc.... its just an all round brilliant lens..

I am considering upgrading my kit lens (18-55 IS) to the Canon 17-55 IS 2.8 - and am just wondering if that zoom lens will take as good pictures as my 50mm prime?

When I say "as good" I mean in terms of IQ, Sharpness, DOF (2.8 vs 1.8), focusing, colours etc...

Thanks for any help :)

This for example - taken this evening, no PP done at all. My kit lens wouldnt create anything like this, so will the 17-55 2.8 be able to?

Click to expand...

If you can't see that that image is soft - you should save your money! It could be down to drinking too much Kronenbourg before shoting though! :)
 
Last edited:
Hope said:
Bravo! Much better!! :)

Did you choose your focus point on the flower?? Any other shot info?

These are much better
Click to expand...

Yeah, right on the closest stamen... bit baffled as to why they've not come out particuarly sharp or in focus though?

Settings were 1/100sec, ISO-1000, f1.8, AWB shot with the Canon 50mm 1.8
 
futureal33 said:
Yeah, right on the closest stamen... bit baffled as to why they've not come out particuarly sharp or in focus though?

Settings were 1/100sec, ISO-1000, f1.8, AWB shot with the Canon 50mm 1.8
Click to expand...

These all look better but i suggest you stop the lens down a bit to get a bit more sharpness. This lens is soft at f/1.8. Try f/2.8 for example.
If your expecting pin sharp at f/1.8 you will never be happy.

But well done for using better settings.
 
Sorry for image overload tonight!
Just taken these with the kit lens... IS turned on, f6.3, 1/2sec (handheld!), ISO-400

Pretty pleased with the results!

Notice how much more in-focus the stamen are now... whether this is due to IS or just better focussing I dont know?


Amaryllis Plant by futureal33, on Flickr

100% crop


IMG_0739 filtered by futureal33, on Flickr
 
To be quite honest I feel that a lot of the time it's not the lenses that are soft but the way they are used.

This pic was taken on my 350D and the kit lens which many people say is "rubbish":


Scamp​

Yet for me even the large size is quite sharp.

Many people seem to complain about lenses but often it can be down to them not understanding how the AF system works - especially on cheaper cameras with less AF points.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top