Reviews for EF-S 17-85 and EF-S 10-22, anybody?

[Andy_T]

Hi,

has anybody so far found reviews for the two new EF-S lenses?

I found the following on a German forum ( www.digitalkamera.de ):

MTF charts for the Canon EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 and the EF-S 17-85/f-5.6 IS

http://www.canon-sales.co.jp/camera/ef/catalog/category/ef_s10_22_f35_45.html
http://www.canon-sales.co.jp/camera/ef/catalog/category/ef_s17_85_f4_56.html

(If your Japanese is not as good ... just scroll down to the charts and hit the '+' button :wink: )

I'm not an expert on MTF charts myself, but these two considerations were given by other contributors:
- not as valid as a measure done by an external tester
- similar to the 28-135

Best regards,
Andy

[drisley]

Thanks for the links.
Coincidentally, I too was looking around for reviews on the lenses yesterday, and I was JUST about to post a thread identical to this one. 8)

I'm only interested in the 10-22mm lens. The MTF, if I'm reading correctly, looks pretty darn good.

[ron chappel]

I used to try pretty hard to match up MTF charts with what i was seeing in my own testing but have pretty much given up these days.

When the MTF of the 18-55 kit lens beats some excellent consumer zooms you know something is wrong.... :shock:

[Andy_T]

There is a lengthy thread on 'that other forum' discussing the 17-85 and claiming that it is not as good as the kit lens :shock:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=10132272

I didn't read all of it, because I find that 'SMS style' discussion quite tiring :roll:

Best regards,
Andy

[Bodog]

Ron, I thought the same re: the MTF charts. The difference is, the ef-s series charts only include data out to 13mm from center, but the ef series goes out to 20mm from center. Big difference!

[CoolToolGuy]

Has anyone seen reviews yet?

Have Fun,

[sGu]

nope, haven't seen reviews anywhere, but i have seen 17-85mm EF-S today in my local shop, looks a bit bulky to me, slightly shorter than 24-70mm f2.8, unfortunately i didn't get a chance feel it, as it was only for display :roll:

[Andy_T]

Michael Reichman has posted a very short followup of his 20D review after a test he had with the camera and the 17-85 lens.

He doesn't comment a lot on the lens (apart from his annoyance that it is not supplied with a lens shade), but he promised to post some lens tests later.

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/20d-location.shtml

Best regards,
Andy

[CoolToolGuy]

Still looking for reviews...

Have Fun,

[Andy_T]

The following test (resolution, CA, distortion with test shots and analyses) looks interesting:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/20D/index.htm

It suggests that the 17-85 IS has noticeably more distortion and CA on the wide end than the 18-55 kit lens.
Resolution on the wide end for both lenses is pretty good (measured above the 17-35 L).

Bottom line ... the 17-85 IS is pretty comparable to the 28-135 IS in optical performance. No big surprise here :?

Best regards,
Andy

[CoolToolGuy]

Andy,

Thanks for that link. Canon was obviously trying to make a lens comparable to the 28-135 on a full-frame. I guess they hit the mark!

Have Fun,

[jalafer]

In the October issue of the "Le chasseur d'images" there is a test of the 17-85 with the DOX analyser. The results are not very good, the distorsion is quite high, and the vigneting also is important.
The lens all together only got 3 stars, when the 17-40 had 5 stars.

[CoolToolGuy]

In the October issue of the "Le chasseur d'images" there is a test of the 17-85 with the DOX analyser. The results are not very good, the distorsion is quite high, and the vigneting also is important.
The lens all together only got 3 stars, when the 17-40 had 5 stars.

How does the 28-135 IS rate, in their opinion?

Have Fun,

[jalafer]

In the October issue of the "Le chasseur d'images" there is a test of the 17-85 with the DOX analyser. The results are not very good, the distorsion is quite high, and the vigneting also is important.
The lens all together only got 3 stars, when the 17-40 had 5 stars.

How does the 28-135 IS rate, in their opinion?

Have Fun,

I haven't seen this lens tested, the 28-105 yes, it did 4 starts !
very low distortion and vignetting, very sharp, only the corners full open were not very good.

[Tom W]

In the October issue of the "Le chasseur d'images" there is a test of the 17-85 with the DOX analyser. The results are not very good, the distorsion is quite high, and the vigneting also is important.
The lens all together only got 3 stars, when the 17-40 had 5 stars.

How does the 28-135 IS rate, in their opinion?

Have Fun,

I haven't seen this lens tested, the 28-105 yes, it did 4 starts !
very low distortion and vignetting, very sharp, only the corners full open were not very good.

Which 28-105? There's the f/3.5-4.5 and the f/4-5.6. I can say that the f/3.5-4.5 is a good, particularly considering its price.

[jalafer]

In the October issue of the "Le chasseur d'images" there is a test of the 17-85 with the DOX analyser. The results are not very good, the distorsion is quite high, and the vigneting also is important.
The lens all together only got 3 stars, when the 17-40 had 5 stars.

How does the 28-135 IS rate, in their opinion?

Have Fun,

I haven't seen this lens tested, the 28-105 yes, it did 4 starts !
very low distortion and vignetting, very sharp, only the corners full open were not very good.

Which 28-105? There's the f/3.5-4.5 and the f/4-5.6. I can say that the f/3.5-4.5 is a good, particularly considering its price.


Thelens tested was the 3,5-4,5

[Mark Kemp]

The following test (resolution, CA, distortion with test shots and analyses) looks interesting:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/20D/index.htm

It suggests that the 17-85 IS has noticeably more distortion and CA on the wide end than the 18-55 kit lens.
Resolution on the wide end for both lenses is pretty good (measured above the 17-35 L).

Bottom line ... the 17-85 IS is pretty comparable to the 28-135 IS in optical performance. No big surprise here :?

Best regards,
Andy

Interesting pages,

he also shows 28-70 L, 28- 135 IS and 28-300 Tamron comparisons. Which could be helpful for the 'how good is the 28-135 IS questions on this board.

[Mark Kemp]

The following test (resolution, CA, distortion with test shots and analyses) looks interesting:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/20D/index.htm

It suggests that the 17-85 IS has noticeably more distortion and CA on the wide end than the 18-55 kit lens.
Resolution on the wide end for both lenses is pretty good (measured above the 17-35 L).

Bottom line ... the 17-85 IS is pretty comparable to the 28-135 IS in optical performance. No big surprise here :?

Best regards,
Andy

Interesting pages,

he also shows 28-70 L, 28- 135 IS and 28-300 Tamron comparisons. Which could be helpful for the 'how good is the 28-135 IS questions on this board.