Image Quality Question [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

View Full Version : Image Quality Question

Ferdinand

24th of March 2004 (Wed), 09:18

CyberDyneSystems

24th of March 2004 (Wed), 10:21

The 17-40 will offer superb quality in the wide angle zoom...

I do not think that the images will be as sharp as the $80.00 wonder! or "thrifty 50"

This is part of the magic of the little 50mm.. they are (50mm lenses) inherently sharp and cheap to design and build.

A wide angke zoom like the 17-40mm is a great lens to have,. buy it for your wide angle needs,. not to replace the 50mm.

Mikesht

24th of March 2004 (Wed), 10:28

I have been debating on a wide angle lens, and because of my budget and what I will be shooting, the one that fits me best would be the 17-40mm f/4L USM.

Right now I do have a 50mm f/1.8 Mk.II, yup the $80 dollar lens :) And i have been shooting potraits and people with it, and the quality is great. However does anyone know if I can get even better image sharpens when using the 17-40mm f/4L USM.

Was wondering if someone who has experience with 2 lenses comment on it? If you can post a photo sample that would even be better. Thanks guys, I am just trying to decide if I should just stick with my 50mm f/1.8 or go for that WA lens. I am sure 24-70mm f/2.8 would be awesome but again this is only between the 17-40mm f/4 and the 50mm f/1.8 Mk.II thanks again.

Regards,
Ferdinand

I have both lenses, and they are both great, 17-40mm f/4 is more convinient then 50mm f/1.8 of course. The image sharpness is not a problem on any of them. But I have never tried to use 17-40 for portraits, because I was thinking the distortions, no matter how small they are on this lens, will "spoil" the portrait, especially if it's a close up portrait. I am curious now.

Ferdinand

24th of March 2004 (Wed), 10:53

Thanks guys, currently what I have for my gears are the 10D, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and the 50mm f/1.8 Mk.II.

So maybe instead of going for the 17-40mm f/4, I should just take potraits and family group photos (5~8 person max) using the 50mm and move back and forth to get the composition I want. And invest in a BG-ED and 550EX. Does that sound like a good way to go? Any recommendation would be much appreciated since you guys do have more experience over me.

Mike, if you get a chance could you perhaps take a couple of potraits with the 17-40mm at 40mm f/4? and 50mm @ f/4 also? Thank you sir!

Reason why I was evaluating the 17-40mm f/4 was to look for an alternate lens to the expensive 24-70mm f/2.8. Zoom definitely makes things easier to compose in some respect. Just have to be careful to perhaps only use the range 24-40mm only?

Regards,
Ferdinand.

maderito

24th of March 2004 (Wed), 11:26

Ferdinand,

I have a 50/1.4 and the 17-40L. I agree with the above comments. It would be unusual to have a situation where I could substitute one lens for the other.

Wintoid posted a topic recently about his need for a compact zoom approximately in the range you were considering. A good suggestion made by several on the Forum was the Canon 24-85/f3.5-4.5. I don't have this lens but am now considering it for the kind of shooting scenarios you outlined. It is not L glass, but it is highly recommended for its optics, compactness, and fast USM. Check out the thread: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27826

Ferdinand

24th of March 2004 (Wed), 11:39

Woody Lee, you agreeing as in that I should hold off on the 17-40 and get all the other accessories first? Or that 17-40 would be a good lens to go with? Thanks for the Link too! :D

Guys how does the 50mm f/1.8 MkII compare to the 24-70mm f/2.8L in
terms of images sharpness? Does anyone have any experience with these 2 lenses?

Regards,
Ferdinand

maderito

24th of March 2004 (Wed), 12:08

Woody Lee, you agreeing as in that I should hold off on the 17-40 and get all the other accessories first? Or that 17-40 would be a good lens to go with?

My main point was that if you were considering the 24-70L zoom, you might consider the less expensive 24-85 which betters meets your budget requirements.

The 17-40L opens up an entire new range of photographic opportunities. I can't imagine walking around outside without it on the camera or close at hand. Ocassionally I use it for WA shots indoors, but its main use is for scenic shots outside. If you're primarily taking shots of individuals, the 17-40L may not get much use. However, it does deliver a different and sometimes interesting image perspective of physical features and proportions. I personally found that working with WA photography helps improve all aspects of photographic technique and sensibility.

Choose a lens for your own personal needs.

randyk

24th of March 2004 (Wed), 12:18

they are both fantastic lenses but the 50 is of limited use in close quarters, great for head shots or maybe torso but getting small groups in a house, restaurant, etc is very tough. A wider prime would be better. Yes, you can use the 17-40 but its sweet spot is landscapes. So my conclusion is that they really don't substitute for each other all that well.

CoolToolGuy

24th of March 2004 (Wed), 12:54

Guys how does the 50mm f/1.8 MkII compare to the 24-70mm f/2.8L in
terms of images sharpness? Does anyone have any experience with these 2 lenses?

Regards,
Ferdinand

I recently did a project shooting a high school play - rehearsals, posed shots, and the performances. I used: 24-70 f2.8 L; 35 f2; 50 f1.8; and 85 f1.8 (all Canon).

I thought I would put the 24-70 on and that would be the end of it. But I found that I could use the extra speed in the primes, and that possibly, the primes were sharper at 2.8 than the 24-70. I switched to the primes for the second performance, where I had a good idea when I would need each prime. It reawakened my love for prime lenses.

Now, this was a low-light situation, so it may be a special case, and I am not preparing to sell the 24-70. But the primes kicked butt in this situation. YMMV

Have Fun
Rick 8)

Jesper

24th of March 2004 (Wed), 13:13

...Right now I do have a 50mm f/1.8 Mk.II, yup the $80 dollar lens :) And i have been shooting potraits and people with it, and the quality is great.

I have both lenses, and they are both great, 17-40mm f/4 is more convinient then 50mm f/1.8 of course. The image sharpness is not a problem on any of them. But I have never tried to use 17-40 for portraits, because I was thinking the distortions, no matter how small they are on this lens, will "spoil" the portrait, especially if it's a close up portrait. I am curious now.

The 17-40L is great - very good build quality, it doesn't extend when zooming or focussing so that it doesn't suck in dust, it has a rubber weather seal around the lens mount and it is not expensive for an L lens.

It's not good for portraits, especially close-up portraits, because it's just too wide. You will need to get very close to you subject's face if you'd want to make a close-up portrait and you'll have the typical wide angle distortions.

Ferdinand

24th of March 2004 (Wed), 13:20

Ferdinand

24th of March 2004 (Wed), 15:46

Well, just did it :( 24-70 f/2.8 on its way. DAMN YOU CANON AND YOUR L LENS!!!!!

Regards,
Ferdinand

chris.bailey

25th of March 2004 (Thu), 13:28

If its any help I think you have done the right thing. Though others will disagree for sure I dont find the 17-40 a great portrait lense. Outside though it is stunning.

DAMphyne

25th of March 2004 (Thu), 22:19

If you had bought the 24-85 zoom you could have ordered the big-ed and the 55EX.
L lenses make us crazy! :?

Ferdinand

25th of March 2004 (Thu), 22:42

David thanks :) Now I know what L truly stands for, Lunatic! :)

Regards,
Ferdinand

mttmrphy

25th of March 2004 (Thu), 23:01

Man, I sure hope I dont get bitten by the L bug...

angrybunny

25th of March 2004 (Thu), 23:17

Very well than, thanks for all your input, so I guess I will just have to bite the bullet and go for the 24-70mm f/2.8L USM and put myself out of my misery, I tell you L fever is sooo evil! :( Its gonna put me in debt.

Ferdinand,

You mean you AREN'T in debt yet? If I mirrored your purchases, I would have to think about selling my car and take public transportation to work. Wait a minute, I might have something there...

Ferdinand

25th of March 2004 (Thu), 23:21

Not yet but I am on the edge, so I need to recuperate for now. Its painful indeed, but with the advices I get here, I think for some who just got started instead of going for the cheaper models and then finding that i have to sell them at a lost while moving on up, I think I made a good decision in going for the best and save in the long run by not having to sell at a lost while on the upgrade path. :D

Now I just need a bag and the Lowepro Off Trail 2 looks good.

Regards,
Ferdinand

Jmurman

26th of March 2004 (Fri), 05:51

Well, just did it :( 24-70 f/2.8 on its way. DAMN YOU CANON AND YOUR L LENS!!!!!

Regards,
Ferdinand

I just checked the price difference between the Sigma and the Canon...wow :shock:

BearSummer

26th of March 2004 (Fri), 06:33

Hi Ferdinand,

Oh you are on the slippery slope now. Its only a matter of time now... you just need to get some more gLass and the next thing to do will be to use it to its fullest extent. Can you say "Full Frame", mwahahahahaa

best regards and welcome to the hobby

BearSummer
(I've been a Canon addict for 6 years, trust me it will only get worse)