17-85 and 24-105 side by side at 50mm -- your thoughts?

hey ya'll

while I was in Texas this last fall I had the chance to play around with a 24-105L.
Gawd, what a lens. I loved it. It had seen some use, but so had my 17-85.

I did a 50mm side-by-side comparison shot with each lens.
All data is in the jpg link below...I did NO sharpening (unsharp mask, freaky details, etc).

I don't really know what I think about these photos. Your thoughts?
Link to huge version below. Once there, click on the photo to enlarge...it gets mega big.
yitzach.deviantart.com​/art/Lens-Comparison-17-85-EFS-vs-24-105-L-Series-341929135

It looks to me like the 17-85mm held it's own against the 24-105 L. If you removed the data from the photos, I would be hard pressed to tell the difference.

I'm viewing this on an iPad. Maybe I need to go to my pc monitor to really tell the difference.

if you stop down most lenses to f8, they're all pretty similar...

Also, you're not necessarily paying for straight image quality when you buy an L lens. Sometimes, you're paying for things like a constant aperture or better build or any number of things that aren't directly related to IQ. Many of the EF-S lenses have very good glass in them and can be used as well as any of the L lenses.

If you get a chance to do it again, try shooting both lenses at f/4 and 50mm and see how the comparison holds up [I don't actually know where the 17-85 stops down from f/4, so you may not be able to even get there on that lens].

My expectations of the 24-105 at f/8 are much higher. How much are the images cropped?

Here's another thought...
The 24-105 consistently impressed me more overall. But I do understand that each zoom lens has its sharp spots and soft spots, right?

Both lenses start at f/4 I do believe.

Here's the crop (approx). Is it cropped TOO much for comparison purposes?

For comparison, as long as they're both cropped the same amount, I don't think it should matter. But it's nice to see how much the images were cropped to know how much that effects the image quality we're looking at.

Both lenses START at f/4, but the 24-105 can maintain that f/4 all the way through its full range; instead of stopping down to smaller apertures as you zoom.

Doesn't look like it's cropped too much, as long as both shots were cropped the same amount.

You are paying straight for IQ with L. It is L because it has special quality glass in it.
But if you take snapshots under bad light the L isn't going to be the magic wand.

i also bet the 24-105 focuses faster then the 17-85

I think so bern...


I felt like as I was walking around I had a better lens in terms of practical range for the shots I like.
When I was editing, I felt like overall I had better pix with the 24-105.

In this specific case, I was surprised to see that they were that close...

Maybe I should have tried more *extreme* pix, as in pushing the lens in a situation in more intense light, or maybe very poor light and checked the comparison. Hmm...thoughts for next time I'm lucky enough to be hanging out with my brother and his 24-105...

I dont think you need to push anything but maybe post comparison at 24mm and 85mm too. For now the 17-85mm look slightly better in the center.

Look here for the same test as yours;
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=3

As you can see the corners of the 24-105mm are better. At f4 the 24-105 is a lot better than the 17-85 at f5.6.

Still, L is not always synonymous of absolute best quality.

I find it amusing how the 17-85 took so much flack from most users, 8 years ago!!!

I posted comparisons of Canon 17-85mm vs. Tamron 28-75mm vs. Canon 70-200 f/4L at 70mm and challenged folks to figure out which was which, in an effort to prove validity of the 17-85 bashing back then! In comparing Tamron 28-85 at 70mm, Canon 70-200 f/4L at 70mm, and Canon 17-85 IS at 70mm using test targets, I could not observe significant difference in detail. Others have even compared the 17-85 against the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L and cannot see a difference! I think the 17-85 used to get more bashing than it deserves from pixel peepers 6-8 years ago. Back then I admitted, " Yes, at widest setting it has its flaws. At the other end of the range it certainly can hold its own against two very respected lenses (that I tested against)." Others echoed my finding.

The 17-85 is pretty good at the long end.

Nowadays though all you hear about is the AF ribbon cables breaking on them.

Mine had a problem where it wouldn't "complete" the picture...like the aperture would snap down to whatever setting I had, but then wouldn't reopen.

Tempe Camera did a bang up job of fixing it... If it broke again though, I'd want a different lens I think.

So Wilt, are you saying that in general for this lens, it does a little better at tighter focal lengths?
All the way wide is where it struggles, more or less?
I've heard that each variable lens has it's "good spots" and "bad spots"...I'd like to know more about that I guess...