17-40mm disappointing ?

[paulo35]

On 20D I am finding unexpected lack of sharpness and surprisingly shallow depth of field in most modes. Am I alone or do I have a duff one? Other views appreciated.

[RichardtheSane]

What aperture are you using?

Mine is a superb copy, sharp and at 17mm great DOF

[evilenglishman]

mine was amazing until i put it on a 20D

[petiot]

what do you mean "it was amazing until you put it on a 20D". do you mean that the resolving power of the 20D sensor is higher that the 17-40 glass? People using this lens with 1Ds and markII seems to be happy (at least i have never heard such statement).

Dan

[evilenglishman]

I used to get razor sharp, extrememly clear images with it on a D60.
On the 20D its average at best, slightly soft photos lacking in contrast and colour.
Same lens, my shooting style hasn't chaged, just the camera body.

[RichardtheSane]

I used to get razor sharp, extrememly clear images with it on a D60.
On the 20D its average at best, slightly soft photos lacking in contrast and colour.
Same lens, my shooting style hasn't chaged, just the camera body.

Do you notice this with any of your other lenses?

[evilenglishman]

my 28-135 IS is pretty much the same as it was and i have a sigma EX 28mm macro lens that is front focusing.

[petiot]

Maybe it is the 20D that is not as good as your d60!!! ;) Well it would be interesting to have the opinion of other people who have noticed a difference in the performances of the 17-40 when changing body. I dont think that the difference in contrast or colour can be attributed to the lens ... i really dont see how this would be possible ... this is the same glass

[petiot]

to come back to the first thread (sorry i drifted away) having the 17-40 i think this is a sharp lens and it gives me plenty of DOF. This is compared with the 24-85 mm which is not good really both regarding sharpness and dof at 24 (seems to be difficult to get good dof on landscape with the 24-85 whereas with the 17-40 i dont even bother with hyperfocal, i just focus on "one third" of the horizo)

Dan

[timmyquest]

my 28-135 IS is pretty much the same as it was and i have a sigma EX 28mm macro lens that is front focusing.

Maybe the 28-135 isnt good enough for the 20D. Maybe the 17-40 is so sharp that when you put it on a 20D which from what i've been reading (this is my assumption) has much less sharp files then previous cameras.

This doesnt mean that it isnt as sharp or sharper then the old bodies, perhaps there is just lest in camera sharpening done.

I dont see how one single lens could possibly be less sharp on one camera...it just doenst make sense.

[booggerg]

Hey evilbrit, how can you even conclude the changes in contrast and colour to the lens? you're using an entirely different body. Should go back and check camera settings.

[paulo35]

Thanks - all interesting comments - just know that on tripod at various settings right through to f22 its softer than I was looking for- suppose I will have to try it on another body and test it against a similar lens . Makes me yearn for my old nikon and Kodachrome !!

[timmyquest]

Thanks - all interesting comments - just know that on tripod at various settings right through to f22 its softer than I was looking for- suppose I will have to try it on another body and test it against a similar lens . Makes me yearn for my old nikon and Kodachrome !!

Softer out of the camera or softer out of a post processing program

[paulo35]

softer out of camera and hard to resolve well in PS - just seems to lack the detail -- will try a few Raw shots -- maybe its just this particular lens but they arent cheap !!

[elbirth]

I dont see how one single lens could possibly be less sharp on one camera...it just doenst make sense.

well, I've heard some instances of people having issues with their lenses communicating with the 20D ("older" lenses and the brand new body). I have a Sigma 28-80mm that used to be horrible with focus... I upgraded the firmware in my 20D and the sharpness improved GREATLY in it.

I wonder if the lens itself could be rechipped or if upgrading the 20D's firmware might help the issue these people are having with the 17-40mm

[timmyquest]

softer out of camera and hard to resolve well in PS - just seems to lack the detail -- will try a few Raw shots -- maybe its just this particular lens but they arent cheap !!

I could accept either these two statements

"Images out of my 20D are soft"

or

"images out of my 17-40 are soft"

But what doesnt make sense is

"Images out of my 20D and 17-40 are softer then on my old camera. And this is the only lens with this problem"

It just doesnt make sense.

[evilenglishman]

Hey evilbrit, how can you even conclude the changes in contrast and colour to the lens? you're using an entirely different body. Should go back and check camera settings.

i've never said that the lens was at fault :roll:
Just my experience of the images from it on one body and then on another.

[evilenglishman]

But what doesnt make sense is

"Images out of my 20D and 17-40 are softer then on my old camera.

that is exactly my experience

[timmyquest]

But what doesnt make sense is

"Images out of my 20D and 17-40 are softer then on my old camera.

that is exactly my experience

It just doenst make sense to me, how could the properties of glass change because of whats behind that glass. ???

[DocFrankenstein]

Maybe the new noise reduction software (Digic II?) makes the image less sharp as compared to the previous camera bodies?

[evilenglishman]

both of these images are 100% crops.
neither have been sharpened - except for the default "20%" in the camera raw plug in.
I know they are under different conditions but I see this with all photos under various conditions.

D60
http://www.electricvenus.com/dump/mmm.jpg

20D
http://www.electricvenus.com/dump/mmm2.jpg

[evilenglishman]

another from the D60
http://www.electricvenus.com/dump/mmm3.jpg

[timmyquest]

English that doesnt exactly prove your point as i and others have pointed out that perhaps images out of the 20D are less sharp anyways and you only noticed on a sharp lesn like the 17-40

[evilenglishman]

maybe, but it doesn't explain the lack of colour and contrast.
Also the images have noise - even at 100 ISO which is noticable in the image i posted.

[timmyquest]

maybe, but it doesn't explain the lack of colour and contrast.
Also the images have noise - even at 100 ISO which is noticable in the image i posted.

So your trying to tell me that not only does the 20D remove the color/contrast of an L lens. But it also adds noise to this lens.

Has it ever occured that maybe these are problems produced by the camera ???

[evilenglishman]

Has it ever occured that maybe these are problems produced by the camera ???

I'm not sure what you think I've talking about but that is exactly what I mean ??

[timmyquest]

Has it ever occured that maybe these are problems produced by the camera ???

I'm not sure what you think I've talking about but that is exactly what I mean ??

It's just that the two of you are saying these only apply to one lens. If it is the camera, then how could it not do it to ALL lenses.

[evilenglishman]

i did say that my sigma is front focusing and my 28-135 is more or less the same - meaning that the image quality was never that great to start with.

All I know is that my D60/17-40 took incredible images that needed no post-processing where as my 20D/17-40 images are noisey, flat and soft.

Maybe the 20D I have is malfunctioning, I don't know - but I would have thought buying a newer, updated, higher resolution camera would at least give images of equal if not better quality and this just isn't the case.

[timmyquest]

i did say that my sigma is front focusing and my 28-135 is more or less the same - meaning that the image quality was never that great to start with.

All I know is that my D60/17-40 took incredible images that needed no post-processing where as my 20D/17-40 images are noisey, flat and soft.

Maybe the 20D I have is malfunctioning, I don't know - but I would have thought buying a newer, updated, higher resolution camera would at least give images of equal if not better quality and this just isn't the case.

Did you ever think (and maybe it's not the case) that the D60 simply did more to your image in-camera?

[evilenglishman]

Did you ever think (and maybe it's not the case) that the D60 simply did more to your image in-camera?

I didn't think the camera did anything with raw images. But if you know something please share it.

[timmyquest]

Did you ever think (and maybe it's not the case) that the D60 simply did more to your image in-camera?

I didn't think the camera did anything with raw images. But if you know something please share it.

From what i understand, even on the 1Ds there is a small amount of sharpening done to RAW images.

As for color/contrast i have no idea, i would presume it's the same though.

[KennyG]

Of course, the difference could be in the RAW post-processing, Canon's s/w vs C1, etc. A lens will always produce exactly the same out of the last bit of glass no matter what, and the only thing that can change the end result is the camera or the use thereof.

My 17-40L is equally as good with my 10D, 1D or 1D MK-II. It does not have focus issues or contrast differences with any of the cameras. I use two RAW processors to convert the images, C1 3.5.2 for the 10D and MK-II and C1 1.3.1 for the 1D. Why one may ask, well it is because 3.5.2 has problems with the original 1D files and does not do as good a job IMHO as the earlier version.

When you consider how far apart my three cameras are you would expect some major differences. However, when using RAW the trick is to get the post-processing right and you can get very similar results from all three. I would imagine that 20D RAW images can be post-processed to give the same results, or better, than your previous camera.

[DeeplyDigital]

No problems here with 17-40 and 20D.
And I tested it all of Sunday afternoon.

For how long have you had your camera?

This is weird, but in the first week with my 20D I didn't get
any sharp enough shots. I like to test lenses / camera on bricks,
the dog etc..
Same with my 10D last year, somehow the camera wouldn't work
for me at the beginning. Then somehow all went well.

Maybe you do have a dud.

Good luck,

J.
-

[HKFEVER]

I also have the same problem to my ID Mark II. :cry: All the lens seems become softer or not sharp compare to EOS 1V or Nikon 70D.

Someone in the forum talk me that some DSLR does more work in the camera, and some like 1D Mark II does less. May be 20D has the same case.

If Canon tech can answer this will be the best.

But I don't believe this, because after I set the sharpness to 3 in the camera, the image sharpness only improve a little bit (I use tripod to test shoot). Just not as sharp as EOS 1V, Nikon 70D, Nikon F5 non Mamiya AFD. :?

[amorrison]

I have noticed a different between the D60 and 20D. My 20D seems to expose a little hotter and has less contrast and color saturation than my D60 (defaul settings). Also, one should expect the images from the 20D to be a bit "softer" for the same lens because there is an increase in magnification of the image (going from 6mp to 8mp). It is unavoidable. I do think the 20D is more accurate than the D60 in it's saturation and contrast however (default settings). There are several threads in another forum about how the D60 is becoming a sought-after studio camera because of it's almost unique saturation "signature" if you will. Just my opinion but I think we are pushing the limits of 35mm lenses with 8mp and 1.6 crop factor - and that's causing focusing accuracy to become very critical.

[chris.bailey]

I was initially a little disappointed with the images I got out of the MkII compared with the 10D but have found I need to tweak up my USM settings in processing. An image from the MKII will take heaps more USM before it gets noticeably degraded. Because of the different sensors and moire filters its probably unfair to compare RAW images directly