A little experiment - "Kit lens" vs. 17-55MM F/2.8 IS USM

Nevermind. I didn't intend for this to be a analytical debate. I guess I'm looking at it differently than others...

How do you lock or delete a thread? This is pointless now...

your friend looks a lot like Clive Owen

Yeah..

It shows quite a bit of difference. I say if you are going for FF later on I suggest to get EF lenses though if you plan to purchase any in the near future.

Cheers

despite OOF, the first looks better to me CA, colors wise. Second has CA and its quite soft.

The first pic, you metered and focused on the background... not a good comparison, but without a doubt the IS will be sharper than the kitlens, people already know that.

Yes.. This is not a good comparison. First one focus on background. Both pictures has a diffrent exposure!

farrukh wrote in post #4061273
despite OOF, the first looks better to me CA, colors wise. Second has CA and its quite soft.

I'm sorry but where is the CA on the second?

Both are OoF.
Exposure is different,
WB is different.

So indeed: "this is not even remotely intended to be any type of review or scientific test"

Says more about the person who took the image then about the lenses

In2Photos wrote in post #4062029
I'm sorry but where is the CA on the second?

I was wondering the same thing

Not a fair comparison. Apples and oranges. A $100 lens to a $2000 lens
Damn that kit lens is sharp
To do this right you should have manual focused on teh same subject and used the same f number.

If I was to choose a lens out of these I'd have taken then kit lens

René Damkot wrote in post #4062055
Both are OoF.
Exposure is different,
WB is different.

So indeed: "this is not even remotely intended to be any type of review or scientific test"

Says more about the person who took the image then about the lenses

i'm pretty sure the comparison is some sort of a joke...it has to be !

ed rader

I must be missing something

Desertraptor wrote in post #4062075
Not a fair comparison. Apples and oranges. A $100 lens to a $2000 lens
Damn that kit lens is sharp
To do this right you should have manual focused on teh same subject and used the same f number.

If I was to choose a lens out of these I'd have taken then kit lens

Not fair one bit, but pairing up a $100 lens and a $1000 lens is kinda fun.

Maybe I'll try some different setups/settings in the future.

I'm really surprised to hear people saying they'd take the kit on this one. So, what you are saying is that you'd rather have the lens that you could barely pull off any shot with because focusing was nearly imposible to the lens that focused in a nanosecond and almost came up with a usuable image?

mrludecrs wrote in post #4062215
Not fair one bit, but pairing up a $100 lens and a $1000 lens is kinda fun.

Maybe I'll try some different setups/settings in the future.

I'm really surprised to hear people saying they'd take the kit on this one. So, what you are saying is that you'd rather have the lens that you could barely pull off any shot with because focusing was nearly imposible to the lens that focused in a nanosecond and almost came up with a usuable image?

if the 17-55 took the second picture it never achieved focus. in the first picture at least the background is in focus.

edit: hey where did the pictures go ?

ed rader

I think its a great idea to test these lenses
Despite the cost of the lense they are similar when you turn IS off stop it to F8 and FL at about 25mm as well as both being EF-S design
Ok so theres different glass different coatings and focus confirmation should be better on the 2.8 because its 2.8, as well as the brighter viewfinder

Its something that i would certainly like to see done more as the more there is the better the comparisons get

Tom