CANON EF-S 17-85 vs CANON EF-S 10-22 for required 20mm focal length
- Thread starter eco_bach
- Start date
vision_filmz
Carbonite Member
J Davis
Veteran
take a look at 20mm on one and compare it to the other. You'll might be surprised
It should make the decision pretty obvious - go with the 17-85. Better yet, go with the 17-55
The 24mm f2.8 is much sharper than any of those lenses if you can make 24mm work. It's also about 1/2 the price of the 17-55 f2.8 or less used. I'm haning onto my cash until this summer to see the new 24mm F2.8 IS that is coming out. It's mtf charts look radically better than the current non L 24's from Canon.
Cheers,
Pete
Cheers,
Pete
Samuel H
Major Contributor
between the two options from the OP, 10-20: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
Any specific examples? There was a problem when they tested the 24mm L F1.4 II from a change in the Canon Digital Photo Pro software that was corrected, but I haven't heard of any other errors or current iso crops that are not accurate.
Cheers,
Pete
Samuel H
Major Contributor
they don't take account of sample variation: your lens may be better, or worse, than the one they got; if they got a bad copy, you could argue their tests are not valid
but that's basically the case for every review site there is (except LensRentals, in the rare cases where they publish their data), and it has an obvious advantage over any other site: you get to SEE how soft or sharp the lens is, and where, with your own eyes
but that's basically the case for every review site there is (except LensRentals, in the rare cases where they publish their data), and it has an obvious advantage over any other site: you get to SEE how soft or sharp the lens is, and where, with your own eyes
J Davis
Veteran
I've owned both these lenses and my own tests found the opposite, I kept the canon and sold the tamron.
Just look at the moire
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2
Samuel H
Major Contributor
yes, my tests with the tamron 17-50 also tell me some things that don't match exactly their results (mine is nearly perfect at 17mm, and soft-ish at 50mm, theirs has some issues at both 17mm and 50mm, and is perfect at 24-35mm)
but I'd file that under "lens variation"
any other review site would suffer from this too
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsa.html
but I'd file that under "lens variation"
any other review site would suffer from this too
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsa.html