Lens upgrade

My main "walk around" lens on my Canon 40D is the Sigma 17-70mm
f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro. I have not been entirely happy with the lens as I
get too high a percentage of "soft" pictures. So I'm looking to upgrade.
I have pretty much decided on the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens.
I would like any of your thoughts/opinions on this lens.

TIA,

Russell

I know this sounds like a flame but I doubt the softness is in the lens.
How do you judge softness in an image?
How is the software sharpening applied?
Do you rely on jpeg, hence tote around a heavy and expensive P&S for
"walking around"?
If you shoot in raw then perhaps you should re-evaluate how you apply
software sharpening.

bmoag wrote:
I know this sounds like a flame

Not at all. I am still fairly new to digital photography and appreciate
any advice and insight I can get. I appreciate you taking the time.

but I doubt the softness is in the lens.
How do you judge softness in an image?
How is the software sharpening applied?
Do you rely on jpeg, hence tote around a heavy and expensive P&S for
"walking around"?
If you shoot in raw then perhaps you should re-evaluate how you apply
software sharpening.

Maybe softness was the wrong term. When I compare photos taken with my
other two lenses, Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 L and 50mm f1.8, the Sigma
photos generally don't seem to be as sharp. That is mostly what I was
going on.

Russell

"Russell D." wrote in message
...

My main "walk around" lens on my Canon 40D is the Sigma 17-70mm
f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro. I have not been entirely happy with the lens as I
get too high a percentage of "soft" pictures. So I'm looking to upgrade.
I have pretty much decided on the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens.
I would like any of your thoughts/opinions on this lens.


I've had a 17-85 and a 24-105 in the past on a cropped body. Both are fine,
however if I was looking for a mid-range zoom for a cropped body now, I
think I would go for the 17-55 IS. I never tried it before because I
thought it was over priced for a non 'L'.

That said, I shoot in reasonably low light quite often so use primes, but if
I wanted a zoom, a 2.8IS would be quite desirable. The 24-70 gets rated
well, but maybe a bit bulky and not particularly conspicuous for a main
'walkaround' lens, also for some maybe not wide enough too.

I also agree with what the previous poster said regarding the softness too.

Russell D. wrote:
bmoag wrote:
I know this sounds like a flame

Not at all. I am still fairly new to digital photography and appreciate
any advice and insight I can get. I appreciate you taking the time.

but I doubt the softness is in the lens.
How do you judge softness in an image?
How is the software sharpening applied?
Do you rely on jpeg, hence tote around a heavy and expensive P&S for
"walking around"?
If you shoot in raw then perhaps you should re-evaluate how you apply
software sharpening.

Maybe softness was the wrong term. When I compare photos taken with my
other two lenses, Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 L and 50mm f1.8, the Sigma
photos generally don't seem to be as sharp. That is mostly what I was
going on.

Reviews of that lens look pretty good:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/31...review?start=1
but samples can vary - it might be a poor copy, not unusual with Sigma.

It would be worth your time to do some testing - pixel peeping at
different apertures, shutter speeds & distances to see what's causing
the softness. If it is camera shake, the IS lens should help. Even
easier, test it against your proposed lens, switching back & forth one
from each lens on the same camera and zoom way in to pixel peep that.
There is lots of room for things to go awry so several sets like this
will be more conclusive but you can try a quick check on the spot with
the LCD. On the computer, to compare, apply strong sharpening (150%)
with a very small radius (0.3) in photoshop to make the differences more
obvious. Look in the corners for weakness at 200%. It's tedious work but
very educational. Start with tests like this using the same lens to see
how much things can vary with camera shake. Compare hand held to tripod
or set it on a table using the timer. Compare your existing lenses at
the same focal length. If it turns out to be a problem with technique
get another *different* lens instead of a replacement.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:10:32 -0800 (PST), "John S."
wrote:

On Jan 14, 4:35 pm, "Russell D." wrote:
My main "walk around" lens on my Canon 40D is the Sigma 17-70mm
f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro. I have not been entirely happy with the lens as I
get too high a percentage of "soft" pictures. So I'm looking to upgrade.
I have pretty much decided on the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens.
I would like any of your thoughts/opinions on this lens.

TIA,

Russell

My 24-105L stays on my 40D 99% of the time... very happy with it...

But it has no wide angle.

Wally

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:51:11 -0800 (PST), Pat
wrote:

On Jan 14, 11:35*am, "Russell D." wrote:
My main "walk around" lens on my Canon 40D is the Sigma 17-70mm
f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro. I have not been entirely happy with the lens as I
get too high a percentage of "soft" pictures. So I'm looking to upgrade.
I have pretty much decided on the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens.
I would like any of your thoughts/opinions on this lens.

TIA,

Russell

Check out the Tokina f2.8 28-70. It's a VERY nice lens.

Maybe if you don' t like wide angle.

Wally

Paul Furman wrote:
Russell D. wrote:
bmoag wrote:
I know this sounds like a flame

Not at all. I am still fairly new to digital photography and appreciate
any advice and insight I can get. I appreciate you taking the time.

but I doubt the softness is in the lens.
How do you judge softness in an image?
How is the software sharpening applied?
Do you rely on jpeg, hence tote around a heavy and expensive P&S for
"walking around"?
If you shoot in raw then perhaps you should re-evaluate how you apply
software sharpening.

Maybe softness was the wrong term. When I compare photos taken with my
other two lenses, Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 L and 50mm f1.8, the Sigma
photos generally don't seem to be as sharp. That is mostly what I was
going on.

Reviews of that lens look pretty good:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/31...review?start=1

Yeah, that's partly why I got it. That and the fact that it has a
similar zoom range as the Tokina 28-85mm that I used for years on my
FTb. That and the price.

but samples can vary - it might be a poor copy, not unusual with Sigma.

Could be. I need to do some testing. I've ordered the Canon 17-55mm and
will do some side by side comparisons when I get it. Can I do anything
about a bad copy?

It would be worth your time to do some testing - pixel peeping

OK, here is term that I need some help with. On the surface the term
"pixel peeping" is fairly self explanatory, I'm looking at the pixels to
see what is going on. But, how do you do this and what am I looking for?
Do I do the peeping zoomed in a lot? Your sharpening example below makes
some sense to me as does looking at the corners at 200%. The computer
side of digital photography is where my steepest learning curve is.

at
different apertures, shutter speeds & distances to see what's causing
the softness. If it is camera shake, the IS lens should help. Even
easier, test it against your proposed lens, switching back & forth one
from each lens on the same camera and zoom way in to pixel peep that.
There is lots of room for things to go awry so several sets like this
will be more conclusive but you can try a quick check on the spot with
the LCD. On the computer, to compare, apply strong sharpening (150%)
with a very small radius (0.3) in photoshop to make the differences more
obvious. Look in the corners for weakness at 200%. It's tedious work but
very educational. Start with tests like this using the same lens to see
how much things can vary with camera shake. Compare hand held to tripod
or set it on a table using the timer. Compare your existing lenses at
the same focal length. If it turns out to be a problem with technique
get another *different* lens instead of a replacement.


I'm not sure I quite get what you mean in that last sentence.

Thanks for your reply and suggestions.

Russell

Russell D. wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Russell D. wrote:
bmoag wrote:
I know this sounds like a flame
Not at all. I am still fairly new to digital photography and appreciate
any advice and insight I can get. I appreciate you taking the time.

but I doubt the softness is in the lens.
How do you judge softness in an image?
How is the software sharpening applied?
Do you rely on jpeg, hence tote around a heavy and expensive P&S for
"walking around"?
If you shoot in raw then perhaps you should re-evaluate how you apply
software sharpening.
Maybe softness was the wrong term. When I compare photos taken with my
other two lenses, Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 L and 50mm f1.8, the Sigma
photos generally don't seem to be as sharp. That is mostly what I was
going on.
Reviews of that lens look pretty good:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/31...review?start=1

Yeah, that's partly why I got it. That and the fact that it has a
similar zoom range as the Tokina 28-85mm that I used for years on my
FTb. That and the price.

but samples can vary - it might be a poor copy, not unusual with Sigma.

Could be. I need to do some testing. I've ordered the Canon 17-55mm and
will do some side by side comparisons when I get it. Can I do anything
about a bad copy?

Only in the first week or whatever, most places will let you return
without proving anything (minus shipping costs). I seriously doubt Sigma
would take a lens back because you claim it is a bad sample unless you
can clearly show a big problem.

It would be worth your time to do some testing - pixel peeping

OK, here is term that I need some help with. On the surface the term
"pixel peeping" is fairly self explanatory, I'm looking at the pixels to
see what is going on. But, how do you do this and what am I looking for?
Do I do the peeping zoomed in a lot? Your sharpening example below makes
some sense to me as does looking at the corners at 200%. The computer
side of digital photography is where my steepest learning curve is.

Yes just zoom in 200% or even 300%. If you have photoshop or ps
elements, use those numbers & see if it makes a difference in sharpness
of detailed edges more or less in the new versus old lens. Click the
preview button on & off while sharpening too. Compare with [View Tile]
and [Zoom Match Zoom and Position]. Hold down the spacebar & use the
pan (hand) tool to move both from center to corners. Specifics will vary
for other programs. Put the camera on a table & use the timer to avoid
shake when comparing lenses. You can probably return the new lens (minus
shipping costs) if there's no improvement.

David Ruether may chime in here but if not, review his page for more
tips on this approach: http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html
He has learned to do this with film and a magnifying loupe from practice
on a lone slide but comparing side to side with 2 shots on a computer
should be easier if you have patience. This is why you will hear people
say sharpness doesn't matter that much these days... they say "that's
just pixel peeping, if you have to work this hard to tell the
difference, it doesn't matter" but these differences are apparent with
care, they will be apparent (perhaps subliminally) on large prints.
There really is such a thing as a trained eye and even untrained eyes
will pick up on this stuff, it just may not register intellectually but
will be felt subjectively.


at
different apertures, shutter speeds & distances to see what's causing
the softness. If it is camera shake, the IS lens should help. Even
easier, test it against your proposed lens, switching back & forth one
from each lens on the same camera and zoom way in to pixel peep that.
There is lots of room for things to go awry so several sets like this
will be more conclusive but you can try a quick check on the spot with
the LCD. On the computer, to compare, apply strong sharpening (150%)
with a very small radius (0.3) in photoshop to make the differences more
obvious. Look in the corners for weakness at 200%. It's tedious work but
very educational. Start with tests like this using the same lens to see
how much things can vary with camera shake. Compare hand held to tripod
or set it on a table using the timer. Compare your existing lenses at
the same focal length. If it turns out to be a problem with technique
get another *different* lens instead of a replacement.


I'm not sure I quite get what you mean in that last sentence.

I just meant get a macro lens or something else instead of replacing the
same zoom range. Since you already ordered the lens, see if you can
prove to yourself that it's worth the money. Probably the build quality
will be better anyways: smooth manual focus metal parts, ease of use,
faster on the long end, etc. If there's no difference, sell the old one
& show some corner crops explaining how the lens is as good as a more
expensive lens.

Then later try the hand held tests and I think you will be amazed how
easy it is to make an expensive lens look more crappy than a cheap lens
with a slightly imperfect technique. This is motivation to hone your
technique. I'm not that good about using a tripod when I should or
remembering to tuck in my elbows & check the shutter speed against the
focal length but have done these tests and at least know what price I'm
paying. If you don't plan to make big prints, none of this matters :-)
but I've got some extraordinary shots with poor technique and it irks
me... motivates me to pay attention & try to do better next time.


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Consider the following as good options for you:

Canon 16-35 IS, Canon 17-40 IS or Canon 24-105 IS. All of these are "L"
series lenses.

For a more "popularly priced" lens, consider the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8

All of these are very sharp.

"Russell D." wrote in message
...
My main "walk around" lens on my Canon 40D is the Sigma 17-70mm
f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro. I have not been entirely happy with the lens as I
get too high a percentage of "soft" pictures. So I'm looking to upgrade.
I have pretty much decided on the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens.
I would like any of your thoughts/opinions on this lens.

TIA,

Russell