04-30-2012, 09:21 AM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1335771363' post='17871']
The Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM is very close to the 17-55mm IS USM in optical performance, but is lighter, more compact and cheaper. Just about everyone who has tried that lens is rather enthusiastic.
I am not a big fan of the 17-85mm, to me the 85mm at f5.6 does not make too much sense (nice portrait focal length without the larger aperture for subject isolation) and the wide angle performance is rather low (CA wise, distortion wise, and the lens is not the most contrasty).
The 15-85mm still has that aperture disadvantage at the portrait range, but is better contrast wise and CA wise.
The cheap and cheerful 18-55mm IS is not the best either... at times people get very nice results with it, but it also can be lacking in contrast and making for very "muddy" foliage in landscape shots.
[/quote]
Since the day I had the 55-250 IS I tend to be more carrefull with that contrast aspect.
I think this is an issue that is not addressed in PZ reviews (probably a hard thing to quantify).
The 55-250 IS had a great review on PZ but actually in the real world it is not a very nice lense because of its lack of contrast.
And I suspected that the 18-55 IS is just in the same league. Great in terms of resolution but disapointing in real world in terms of contrast.
17-85 was not too bad in that aspect in my opinion.
Currently there is a canon cash back program.
It offers 70 euros for the 17-55. That would make it 789 euros.
I could risk myself on that option.
Assuming I can get a good sample.
The Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM is very close to the 17-55mm IS USM in optical performance, but is lighter, more compact and cheaper. Just about everyone who has tried that lens is rather enthusiastic.
I am not a big fan of the 17-85mm, to me the 85mm at f5.6 does not make too much sense (nice portrait focal length without the larger aperture for subject isolation) and the wide angle performance is rather low (CA wise, distortion wise, and the lens is not the most contrasty).
The 15-85mm still has that aperture disadvantage at the portrait range, but is better contrast wise and CA wise.
The cheap and cheerful 18-55mm IS is not the best either... at times people get very nice results with it, but it also can be lacking in contrast and making for very "muddy" foliage in landscape shots.
[/quote]
Since the day I had the 55-250 IS I tend to be more carrefull with that contrast aspect.
I think this is an issue that is not addressed in PZ reviews (probably a hard thing to quantify).
The 55-250 IS had a great review on PZ but actually in the real world it is not a very nice lense because of its lack of contrast.
And I suspected that the 18-55 IS is just in the same league. Great in terms of resolution but disapointing in real world in terms of contrast.
17-85 was not too bad in that aspect in my opinion.
Currently there is a canon cash back program.
It offers 70 euros for the 17-55. That would make it 789 euros.
I could risk myself on that option.
Assuming I can get a good sample.