Is the Canon 17-55mm lens considered the sharpest lens canon makes under 100mm?

V

vision_filmz

Carbonite Member
I'm looking to invest in the best lens canon makes in the 17-85mm range. All of my studies so far says the 17-55mm is it. Any opinions?

Thanks
 
flambe said:
The ef-s one? I would say so. I have one and it's wicked sharp. Love it.
Click to expand...
Thank You for your reply, I know this lens is expensive but do you honestly feel it is worth the money? I generally never shoot anything above 50mm and even if I did I have an 85mm lens for that. My sweet spot area is actually 17mm-35mm range. Just want to know which is considered the sharpest Ef /Ef-s lens.
 
Sounds like in your mind you already bought it. You better go buy it or you won't get any sleep!
 
Last edited:
Pookie said:
Excuse me?
Click to expand...

I think what he's trying to say is that the difference between "very sharp" and "the sharpest" is not as important for video. The difference between the 17-55 IS and other good lenses in the same range such as, say, the Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 18-50, is not that big, and you'd be hard pressed to pick them apart in photographs, let alone a 1920x1080 video.

Good glass will always be a massive factor in image quality whether it's 1mp or 100mp, but sharpness is not everything. Contrast, colour reproduction, flare & ghosting are all equally important factors and if you are buying good quality glass, be it from Canon or a 3rd party manufacturer, then there's no point splitting hairs - most of them will be more than good enough for video. Cheap glass, on the other hand...


steventimothy said:
The sharpest zoom lens, you mean. All their primes would be sharper.
Click to expand...

That was my initial thoughts! If ultimate sharpness is what you are after, then I'd look to the Primes - even the cheap Canon 50mm 1.8 is extremely sharp. If an extremely sharp zoom in the wide-to-standard range is what you're after, then it's hard to go past the Canon 17-55 IS.
 
vision_filmz said:
Thank You for your reply, I know this lens is expensive but do you honestly feel it is worth the money? I generally never shoot anything above 50mm and even if I did I have an 85mm lens for that. My sweet spot area is actually 17mm-35mm range. Just want to know which is considered the sharpest Ef /Ef-s lens.
Click to expand...

I haven't used it for film, just stills but as I mentioned, I'm very happy with my purchase. It's heavy as hell though!!!!
I did a bunch of research before shelling out the cash, and came to the conclusion with help from some photo blog/review sites:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=303

I read some comments around weatherproofing and lack there off for this lens, but honestly haven't experienced any issues yet, 3 months in.
 
deltoidjohn said:
I think what he's trying to say is that the difference between "very sharp" and "the sharpest" is not as important for video. The difference between the 17-55 IS and other good lenses in the same range such as, say, the Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 18-50, is not that big, and you'd be hard pressed to pick them apart in photographs, let alone a 1920x1080 video.

Good glass will always be a massive factor in image quality whether it's 1mp or 100mp, but sharpness is not everything. Contrast, colour reproduction, flare & ghosting are all equally important factors and if you are buying good quality glass, be it from Canon or a 3rd party manufacturer, then there's no point splitting hairs - most of them will be more than good enough for video. Cheap glass, on the other hand...




That was my initial thoughts! If ultimate sharpness is what you are after, then I'd look to the Primes - even the cheap Canon 50mm 1.8 is extremely sharp. If an extremely sharp zoom in the wide-to-standard range is what you're after, then it's hard to go past the Canon 17-55 IS.
Click to expand...

I own the 50mm 1.8 lens and think it is very sharp, great image quality as a matter of fact. Very often though I would like to have that same sharpness in the 17-35mm area which is why I am considering this lens. Lately I haven't been able to setup my shots how I wanted to them, so started think a zoom lens in this focal length area would be very helpful. Personally I think the canon 18-55mm lens is actually quite sharp, but the lack of constant aperture messes up my shots every time I decide to do anything creative quick when zooming......
 
Keep in mind that the 17-35mm area will often look soft anyway, even with the sharpest lens, because the camera is not good at recording wide-angle shots. Switch to a close-up with a 50mm however, and the camera will look a lot sharper.

I'd definitely make sure you rent or borrow an EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 before you drop over $1000 on it. It's a great lens but you want to make sure you are getting what you expect - I'm sure you'd be pretty frustrated if you spent the money and then realised that the softness at wide angles is actually coming from the sampling used on the sensor and is just as bad even with your shiny new lens.

Also check out the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC version). It's a great lens at a fraction of the price. No IS, but great glass. If you can tell it apart from the Canon 17-55 in videos then you are either delusional or deserve a medal!
 
That's the beauty of prime lenses. They don't need to make any compromises to include zooming elements. A 50mm prime, particularly one which is not exceptionally fast (compared to, say, an f/1.2) has a relatively simple forumla and Canon have taken advantage of that to produce a great piece of glass, in a not so great body, for a remarkable price.

I just wish they'd sell the same lens in a slightly better body for an extra $80 or so... I'd gladly pay for it!
 
A couple of things:

DSLR's resolve about 720p worth of unique pixels in 1080p mode. This is the equivalent of less than 1.5 MP. Canon's cheapest glass can do that just find.

Too much sharpness in a lens will do more harm than good for a DSLR because it will cause excessive aliasing and moire.

The most important aspects of lenses for video usage is color rendition, micro-contrast, flare and bokeh quality, lack of distortion and vignetting (unless you want it), focus ring quality and build quality, lack of focus breathing, and keeping focus and t-stop constant throughout zoom range.

These aspects are important because with h264 codec, you really don't get much flexibility to change these aspects in post.

This is why Sharpness is hardly a variable, and why Canon's L lenses and Zeiss lenses still look and perform much better than cheap lenses even in video mode.
 
Last edited:
HansSteinert said:
A couple of things:

DSLR's resolve about 720p worth of unique pixels in 1080p mode. This is the equivalent of less than 1.5 MP. Canon's cheapest glass can do that just find.

Too much sharpness in a lens will do more harm than good for a DSLR because it will cause excessive aliasing and moire.

The most important aspects of lenses for video usage is color rendition, micro-contrast, flare and bokeh quality, lack of distortion and vignetting (unless you want it), focus ring quality and build quality, lack of focus breathing, and keeping focus and t-stop constant throughout zoom range.

These aspects are important because with h264 codec, you really don't get much flexibility to change these aspects in post.

This is why Sharpness is hardly a variable, and why Canon's L lenses and Zeiss lenses still look and perform much better than cheap lenses even in video mode.
Click to expand...

So what is considered one of the better lens in the 17-35mm range in your opinion?

Thanks
 
vision_filmz said:
So what is considered one of the better lens in the 17-35mm range in your opinion?

Thanks
Click to expand...

For a crop camera? I have a 17-40mm f4 and it's awesome... for full frame. For crop, it's probably not that great of a buy. I would look into the Tamron or the Sigma, honestly. The problem with these two lenses and the Canon lens is that the focus rings are super small.

http://www.lenstip.com/tmp/1706_tam17-50_1.jpg

http://www.lenstip.com/tmp/1606_can17-55_2.jpg

http://www.optyczne.pl/aparaty_image/5983_sig17-50_1.jpg

Compare that to my 17-40mm f4:

http://www.lenstip.com/aparaty_image/1255_can17-40_2.jpg

And it's a significant difference. But the thing is, paying 700 bucks for a 17-40 f4 on a crop camera is a rip off. Although focus rings are really important to me, personally.

But yeah, I would go with the Tamron and use the rest of your money for other stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top