 Cheryl Staub |
Which lens for all purpose and sharper images..... With a Digital Rebel which lens would make a better all purpose, everyday lens and produce sharper images?...the Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Autofocus or the Canon 17-85mm EF-S IS USM Lens. Will I hear the "L" lens for sharper images and the other for everyday? Have also read many comments about not getting sharp images with a Rebel and you must sharpen in Photoshop...do you really need to do this? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
||
|
David A. Bliss |
All digital SLRs need some sharpening in PS. DSLRs do not do as much in camera processing as P&S cameras. I prefer to have the control myself, anyway, and not leave it up to the camera to decide FOR me what is best.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Craig m. Zacarelli |
David is 100% correct! You will need to sharpen and perhaps adjust the colors and other things like Brightness and contrast in PS, but thats half the fun. DSLRS are great tool, esp with a great lens..of which youve listed two. the 17-40 will deliver sharp colorfull images but the F4 means its kinda slow. f2.8 would be better. But, its a great lens and used under the right conditions will probably be your favorite lens. 17-85 seems to be a great lens too, the IS is a big help, there again better in brighter light but with IS you can stop the shutter down a bit and still get sharp images.. I have thee 75-300 IS and the 28-135 IS.. the 28-135 IS is my favorite and most used lens now..because of the IS..I dont think I can buy another lens without it! As for Photo Shop, learn to shoot in RAW and to "develope" your files in PS. RAW will help you use the DSLR to its maximum capabilities. There are tons of tutorials on the net and you can always seek advice here. Craig-
|
|
|
|
||
|
David A. Bliss |
Really, though, when you are using a 17-40mm, how often do you really need to open up the aperture to the point where f2.8 would be that important. There is only one time that I wish I had a faster wide angle lens, and that is when I am shooting bands in a club. Any other time, I am more often than not going for more DOF when shooting wide. I have not shot on either of these lenses, so I cannot speak for their quality. If you can, take your camera to a shop that sells them, and take some sample shots. Be sure to shoot at different fstops and focal lengths, so you can see if there is much fall off. Don't just assume that because it is an L series that it is better than another lens. Very often this is true, but not always.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
The 17-40 is more than likely incredibly expensive. The 17-85 is probably around half as much. I would say that the 17-85 is more of an all purpose lens. The 17-40 is pretty much exclusively wide angle on film cameras and on the digital rebel, it's more like 28-62mm or something like that. Decently wide and not too much on the long end. Very close to just a normal lens (50mm is considered normal in this format). If you're looking between one of the two to use as a main lens, you would probably rather go with the 17-85. It's normally slower than the other lens if you're at anything other than say, 17-30mm since it doesn't have a constant aperture, but it does have the IS. I'm not really a big fan of IS and I wouldn't feel like I need it until I get to a lens that can't be handheld at even 1/200 sec. It holds the camera still for a lot of shots but if the subject is moving, it doesn't help in that aspect. I would definitly assume the L lens gives a much sharper image which is why it costs so much more along with the constant aperture, but it's so wide that it's mostly for wide or moderately wide angle shots. I haven't compared the 17-85 lens to others myself but it's supposed to be very similar to the 28-135mm IS lens that a lot of portrait photographers use.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Glenn E. Urquhart |
Hi Cheryl - Both are fine lenses. I have a 20D, and also have the Canon 17-85 mm EF-S IS USM Lens. This lens is sharp and I highly recommend it! Its on my camera 95% of the time (also have a 1.8 50 mm and 70-300 mm IS USM). About the Rebel and sharp images, the same was going around about the 20D. I have had no problems and agree with Dave about using PS. Cheers, Glenn.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Craig m. Zacarelli |
I guess what happens is when people come off a good P&S and go to DSLR, they expect thier Images to look even better... Why? Because its got more MP's and its more expensive and its bigger...and the pros use them. Sorry, but its just not the case and the reason your camera isnt even that sharp in full auto mode shooting JPEG is because the DSLR is not set up to be that sharp, there are too many variables to consider, I mean, they are already expensive can you imagine the cost of adding more to it, just to give images you could get with a cheap littl point and shoot. plus, another thing is.. for every DSLR sold, they are gonna sell at least three lenses.. and the better the lens, the better the pic (unless its taken by a terrible photog.) but, like I said, part of the fun is "Doing it yourself" and that means, everything from choosing the lens to use, the mode to shoot in, the lighting, the shutter speed, the focus...and then taking the shot and opening it in PS and then deciding what to do to it to make it yours! A Point and Shoot wont give you that freedom of expression that a DSLR can, I guess that is why Photography is considered an art form. Craig-
|
|
|
|
||
|
Cheryl Staub |
This is what I don't like the sound of...the quality of my pictures will depend on my computer skills! While I've enjoyed my limited experience with Photoshop the thought of having to "correct" all my digital photos is a little daunting.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
Good photos can be taken directly as .jpg files from a DSLR, you just have to increase the Contrast, Saturation, Sharpening, etc. processing parameters from their default settings. However, doing so kind of defeats a lot of the advantage of a DSLR over a digital point & shoot.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||