Richard Lyman , Mar 29, 2009; 01:57 p.m.
I have an E-FS 17-55mm that I have some concerns about. It seems that images are coming out soft and I'm getting some CM that I never noticed before. Considering this is supposed to be a very sharp lens I wonder if mine is out of whack. I realize DSLR's don't apply sharpening to RAW files, but this seems a bit much. My other lenses don't seem to have this problem. My 28-135 and 70-300 and 50mm all seem very crisp. It doesn't seem to be a focus issue as it gets the same results on my 450D and my 50D, in both auto and manual focusing. I'm shooting at apertures and shutter speeds that should rule out motion blur, and DOF issues. I get the same results even using a tripod and self-timer.
If anyone else owns this lens I'd like to get their opinion on whether or not my copy is performing up to par with theirs. Here is a sample taken straight out of camera and converted to jpeg. No sharpening applied in either ACR or camera (50D). This was taken in sunny conditions at f/11, 1/200th, the lens is wide open @17mm , IS was on. The other image is a 50% crop which shows the softness more clearly. It doesn't look terrible at normal magnification but it is still quite noticeable compared to my other lenses. The crop shows it clearly. I'm not sure if it's me or if this lens needs adjustment so I'd like to get some opinions from people more knowledgeable than myself. Hopefully I can get these posted smoothly here goes...
Thanks,
Richard
Richard Lyman , Mar 29, 2009; 02:00 p.m.
Here is the uncropped version.
Puppy Face , Mar 29, 2009; 03:27 p.m.
So it was much better when you first bought it and gradually went out of whack? I'd say if your 28-135 and 70-300 are really better something may be wrong. Perhaps the elements have drifted slightly out of alignment. I had a 70-200 4L do that and became very blurry only on the left side at F4 to F8. Canon fixed it for free although out of warranty.
With those things said, your image doesn't really look bad. THe 50D is an extremely revealing camera when viewed at pixel level. So images taken last year with a 20D/30D/40D with the same lens are more forgiving (less revealing of defects) at pixel view.
Richard Lyman , Mar 29, 2009; 04:12 p.m.
I didn't have my 28-135 with me that day, but here is a similar shot taken with the 28-135. Not the same values so I don't know how useful it is as a comparison, but to me it looks much sharper. The crop from my first post is less than 50% so although it's pixel peeping to an extent, I"m not at 100% I just magnified it enough to make it clear what I'm seeing. I agree at normal magnification it's not that bad, but compared to the attached shot perhaps you can see what I mean. I feel like I'm going crazy, so I posted in the hopes I can find out if it's me or the lens!
Richard Lyman , Mar 29, 2009; 04:29 p.m.
Thanks Puppy Face,
Yeah it seemed better when I got it. When I got the 28-135 with the 50D is when it started bothering me, seeing the comparison. I've had better results with the 17-55 on the 50D but I thought they were still a little fuzzy. Yesterday when reviewing the results it really jumped out at me. It seems particularly bad when focused at infinity, especially when there is foliage involved.
Peter Ridding , Mar 29, 2009; 08:03 p.m.
Hi Richard
I have the same lens on a 450D. At first I thought it was the lens and gained a lot of helpful answers from this forum. If interested I will look up the topic.
The images, certainly with foliage do look blurry, grainy,terrible straight from camera. However, with DPP and/or LR post processing they do look much better on the computer (21 inch screen). The prints look better than the screen.
I still think they are a little soft compared to my 70-300 IS USM lens but was told it was what to be expected from this lens. It is good, but not great.
If I can work out how to upload a photo of the correct dimensions, and you want a comparison, I'll have a go.
Cheers,
Peter.
David Mintzer , Mar 29, 2009; 08:21 p.m.
I would definitely have it checked---no doubt there is an issue.
David Mintzer , Mar 29, 2009; 08:26 p.m.
I would definitely have it checked---no doubt there is an issue.
Puppy Face , Mar 29, 2009; 08:29 p.m.
David Mintzer , Mar 29, 2009; 08:35 p.m.
I would definitely have it checked---no doubt there is an issue.
