I just wanted to point out to ginger that the 17 - 85mm is quite decent for a basic walk around -
it is slow
it does not give creamy bokeh
but it is sharp
it covers a useful range
and that it might suit her with her 20d. She might be just as happy with the 50mm f1.8 instead.........
Ann, I use a non glass 28-135 Canon IS as a walkabout, if one could call it that.
I really like it. I also have the Rebel kit lens, don't know what I am going to do about that...........sell it and get another one for the 20D or not. I assume that my Rebel kit lens will work on the 20D, if not I am going to have to search harder for a camera with the kit lens.
I would like the lens you are talking about, but my main "want" right now is a lens on the 400 side. I don't have one of those, mine goes to 300 and is not a very good lens. I already have the walk about, it is on my camera right now, actually. I always carry my backpack as I change lenses at will. Sometimes on the docks, I keep the same lens on all afternoon and into evening. But more usually, I have two different lenses, or three, changed several times.
Maybe I need a glass lens 17-400 IS sharp as a tack, glass, made by Canon. That would just about cover it. Then I would start wanting a wider lens, I am sure, smile. (I have the 50mm, never use it.)
Ann, I use a non glass 28-135 Canon IS as a walkabout, if one could call it that.
I really like it. I also have the Rebel kit lens, don't know what I am going to do about that...........sell it and get another one for the 20D or not. I assume that my Rebel kit lens will work on the 20D, if not I am going to have to search harder for a camera with the kit lens.
I would like the lens you are talking about, but my main "want" right now is a lens on the 400 side. I don't have one of those, mine goes to 300 and is not a very good lens. I already have the walk about, it is on my camera right now, actually. I always carry my backpack as I change lenses at will. Sometimes on the docks, I keep the same lens on all afternoon and into evening. But more usually, I have two different lenses, or three, changed several times.
Maybe I need a glass lens 17-400 IS sharp as a tack, glass, made by Canon. That would just about cover it. Then I would start wanting a wider lens, I am sure, smile. (I have the 50mm, never use it.)
Thanks, though,
ginger
Hi Ginger
If you have and like the 28 -135, then I do not see any point in the 17 - 85 or the other kit. The focal lengths all overlap. That leaves you free to worry about a nice long lens! Just buy a 20d body, no need for either kit lens! That leaves you some money free for a nice long lens!
Ann, I use a non glass 28-135 Canon IS as a walkabout, if one could call it that.
I really like it. I also have the Rebel kit lens, don't know what I am going to do about that...........sell it and get another one for the 20D or not. I assume that my Rebel kit lens will work on the 20D, if not I am going to have to search harder for a camera with the kit lens.
ginger
You can see that my sensor needs cleaning.
Let me know what you see - or what you are looking for.
I am not a pixel peeping kind of gal, and just know that the lens is capable of taking nice shots for me.
Well, from what I know, Paramet 1 is +1 contrast, +1 sat, and +1 sharp, right? I would expect to see more contrast and sharpness from those setttings, but more notably, more sharpness and detail in the cabin. I'm assuming the cabin is what you focused on though, so maybe that's wrong?
Richard
Just looked at my camera, and I am actually on P2 - all parameters at 0.
I cannot be sure where I focused, here is the whole scene (PP'd)
I think it is very difficult to tell how sharp a photo is on the web - I find that smugmug occassionally introduces artifacts. I also have been repeatedly told that 'all dslr images must be sharpened'. I'm not sure I agree. In any case, I have no quibble with my 17 - 85 - I can get images that I find pleasing and detailed and sharp.
I think it is very difficult to tell how sharp a photo is on the web - I find that smugmug occassionally introduces artifacts. I also have been repeatedly told that 'all dslr images must be sharpened'. I'm not sure I agree. In any case, I have no quibble with my 17 - 85 - I can get images that I find pleasing and detailed and sharp.
ann
ann,
it's true that most dslr images need sharpening - but remember, even at sharpness set to 0 or - in your parms, the camera is applying *some* sharpening on the resulting jpg. if you shoot raw, there's no sharpening applied till you do it yourself. i say *most* becuase i have shot raws with my 50 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4L that haven't needed sharpening for *web* display, but for print, yes, i've sharpened. smugmug applies a small amount of sharpening to -L, -M and -S images... there's loads of info on why in the smugmug support thread (search on sharpening). you can, of course, upload -O images at say, 800x533, and if you display the -O, there'll be no added sharpening applied.
Just looked at my camera, and I am actually on P2 - all parameters at 0.
I cannot be sure where I focused, here is the whole scene (PP'd)
I think it is very difficult to tell how sharp a photo is on the web - I find that smugmug occassionally introduces artifacts. I also have been repeatedly told that 'all dslr images must be sharpened'. I'm not sure I agree. In any case, I have no quibble with my 17 - 85 - I can get images that I find pleasing and detailed and sharp.
ann
I agree all dSLR images need sharpening, the question is how much sharpening. Also, I agree the 17-85 and some post-processing can get images that are pleasing and detailed and sharp, it's just that for $600 I don't think they are pleasing enough or detailed enough or naturally sharp enough. I think for $600 one is better off getting the 17-40 f/4L. But then again, I don't mind carrying around a bunch of lenses.
Richard
I agree all dSLR images need sharpening, the question is how much sharpening. Also, I agree the 17-85 and some post-processing can get images that are pleasing and detailed and sharp, it's just that for $600 I don't think they are pleasing enough or detailed enough or naturally sharp enough. I think for $600 one is better off getting the 17-40 f/4L. But then again, I don't mind carrying around a bunch of lenses.
Richard
Oh, I am in agreement that it is not a good bargain, or even a good deal - I paid a fortune for mine!
Comments
I really like it. I also have the Rebel kit lens, don't know what I am going to do about that...........sell it and get another one for the 20D or not. I assume that my Rebel kit lens will work on the 20D, if not I am going to have to search harder for a camera with the kit lens.
I would like the lens you are talking about, but my main "want" right now is a lens on the 400 side. I don't have one of those, mine goes to 300 and is not a very good lens. I already have the walk about, it is on my camera right now, actually. I always carry my backpack as I change lenses at will. Sometimes on the docks, I keep the same lens on all afternoon and into evening. But more usually, I have two different lenses, or three, changed several times.
Maybe I need a glass lens 17-400 IS sharp as a tack, glass, made by Canon. That would just about cover it. Then I would start wanting a wider lens, I am sure, smile. (I have the 50mm, never use it.)
Thanks, though,
ginger
If you have and like the 28 -135, then I do not see any point in the 17 - 85 or the other kit. The focal lengths all overlap. That leaves you free to worry about a nice long lens! Just buy a 20d body, no need for either kit lens! That leaves you some money free for a nice long lens!
Thats how I see it, anyway.
My Galleries My Photography BLOG
Ramblings About Me
large .jpeg
Camera set to parameter 1
No post work at all:
You can see that my sensor needs cleaning.
Let me know what you see - or what you are looking for.
I am not a pixel peeping kind of gal, and just know that the lens is capable of taking nice shots for me.
ann
My Galleries My Photography BLOG
Ramblings About Me
Richard
Just looked at my camera, and I am actually on P2 - all parameters at 0.
I cannot be sure where I focused, here is the whole scene (PP'd)
I think it is very difficult to tell how sharp a photo is on the web - I find that smugmug occassionally introduces artifacts. I also have been repeatedly told that 'all dslr images must be sharpened'. I'm not sure I agree. In any case, I have no quibble with my 17 - 85 - I can get images that I find pleasing and detailed and sharp.
ann
My Galleries My Photography BLOG
Ramblings About Me
ann,
it's true that most dslr images need sharpening - but remember, even at sharpness set to 0 or - in your parms, the camera is applying *some* sharpening on the resulting jpg. if you shoot raw, there's no sharpening applied till you do it yourself. i say *most* becuase i have shot raws with my 50 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4L that haven't needed sharpening for *web* display, but for print, yes, i've sharpened. smugmug applies a small amount of sharpening to -L, -M and -S images... there's loads of info on why in the smugmug support thread (search on sharpening). you can, of course, upload -O images at say, 800x533, and if you display the -O, there'll be no added sharpening applied.
cheers!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Richard
ann
My Galleries My Photography BLOG
Ramblings About Me