Going digital

[macgyver]

Don't listen to certain people here, the IS will be helpful at all lenghts.

[Digiteyesed]

I think that 17-85 is an f 4.0 lens man. It also will only fit two Canon cameras, yours (300D series) and the 20D. If you ever update to a fullframe you can't use it.

It has been an astoundingly good lens for me, for the price I paid for it.

[dwdallam]

It has been an astoundingly good lens for me, for the price I paid for it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54554\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No doubt it is an excellent lens, but that wasn't my objection.

EDIT--->I thought you paid 1100.00 for that lens! Sorry for the confusion. Sure I can see buying that lens for that price now.  

1) L lenses are better, and the 24-70 L lens cost no more than the one you bought--no IS though. <--this is wrong and I appologize.

2) Canon doesn't offer the 24-70 in IS, and I suspect this is because of the lens being so fast as to not need it.

3) The 17 is not compatible on anything other than the 300 and 20D series cameras. That's a lot of money to spend on a lens of that type.

4) The 24-70 L F2.8 lists at 1105.00 at B&H after rebate at this time.

5) I'm not saying it's a bad choice, only one I would not make for teh reasons now explicitely outlined above.

My mian problem was that I thought you paid the same for the lens as the 24 cost.

[dwdallam]

Yes, it is.
It's f/4 at 17mm and f/5.6 at 85mm.
I don't see the relevance of that statement. If you're doing photography, you're most likely after the best possible quality you can afford and which is practical.
I don't think you understand the full benefits of this lens as a walk-around lens.

 - 17mm vs 24mm; that's about a third wider FOV
 - IS yields hand-holding options equivalent to approximately f/1.4 at 17mm and f/2 at 85mm
 - Light weight means less strain on the neck/wrists
 - Smaller lens means that you're less obtrusive

However, the latter three of these benefits are also true for the 24-105mm f/4L IS.

But "raising the ISO a bit" is not an option when you're already shooting at ISO 1600.
The same price? Where can I get the 24-70 for the same price as the 17-85, without paying twice the normal price for the 17-85? Tell me, and I'll sell my 24-70 on the used market and buy a brand new one instead! At B&H, the 17-85 is USD 525 for the USA version, while the 24-70 is 1150 ...

Also, your question should be:

"Why not trade the EF-S 17-85 for the EF 24-105 f/4L and have a better lens for a little more than twice the price?"
Don't forget that using a flash is impractical in many, many situations.

Example:



A flash in the above image would simply ruin the play of colours and shadows from the candlelights.
This image was shot at f/2.8 @70mm, 1/30 exposure time, ISO 800 with IS enabled.

I was fortunate in that I had planned the shot and could use a tripod, but on several occasions, you just have to grab the shot.

Technically speaking, the shot could have been taken on a tripod with the 24-70mm f/2.8L at f/2.8. The lack of IS would mean that I'd have to push the ISO setting to 3200 to have a chance at a handheld shot like that; 1/120 exposure time may be sufficient for 70mm, ISO 1600 and 1/60 is not, but could be possible on a tripod.

Here's another example:


f/4.5 @70mm, 1/80 exposure time, ISO 3200 with IS enabled, -1/3 EV (underexposed).

If we were to ignore my desire for the DOF that f/4.5 gave me, f/2.8 would make the same exposure possible on a tripod at ISO 3200.

Since ISO 3200 is unavailable on the Rebel and Rebel XT, you can draw your own conclusions regarding the likelyhood of having success with images like that.


f/3.5 @32mm, 1/30 exposure time, ISO 1600, -2/3 EV.

With a Rebel or Rebel XT, I couldn't push this much further. I'd get 1/50 exposure time at f/2.8, which would be barely enough. The 20D etc. can push it to 1/100 exposure at f/2.8.

I dearly wish I had IS at the time I was taking that image; I missed so many opportunities simply because:

 - a tripod was impractical (people would bump into it)
 - it was mostly even darker than in the semi-successful image posted above
I don't.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54495\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Crap! I thought he paid 1100 for the lens? I see it lists for 524. OK for that much of a difference, I can see your point clearly!

[dwdallam]

Thank you Mark, I got my gear from Samy's camera in L.A, the price with the 17-85 IS USM was $ 1174.95 with the rebate,I got a Dane I gig and I bought from Costco 2  I gigs scandisk for  $89.99 each, I also got an HP card reader from Samy's for $29.99. I did not get the 70-300 mm is for about $ 560 because I was already overbudget. Now that I have reinstalled the new drivers for everything on my computer I need to reinstall CS2
Thanks again,

Andres
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54348\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I misread how much you paid for the entire kit Andres. Yes, that is a great price for good equipment. So just ignore everything I said becsaue I based most of it on my misreading that you paid 1100 for the lens alone.

[jani]

2) Canon doesn't offer the 24-70 in IS, and I suspect this is because of the lens being so fast as to not need it.

Canon offers the 24-105 f/4L IS instead, and that's because Canon does see the customers' need for IS even on lenses in this range.

Think about that one for a bit; the modern IS gives you up to three stops worth of headroom, so unless you need the shallowness in DOF that f/2.8 gives you or the actual shorter shutter time, you have the equivalent of f/1.4 for usability. And that goes for tripod use as well.


My gripe is that they didn't make an f/2.8 with IS. The 24-70 f/2.8L is already heavy (950 g), and making an IS version doesn't seem to increase the weight a lot (EF 70-200 f/2.8: 1310 g, IS: 1470 g).


Speaking of weight, the 24-105 f/4L IS only weighs 670 g, and the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS weighs 475 g (half the weight of the 24-70!). I'm fairly certain that these two would be more comfortable as walk-around lenses than my 24-70.

[jani]

Jan, OK, you have it easy. My wife is no photography expert, but a designer with an artistic eye, so when she finds a photo of mine blah-blah, pointless, or otherwise uninspiring she says so and she's usually correct.

I'm pretty certain that "having it easy" is worse (for the images) than not having it easy.

On noise reduction - I'm using Noise Ninja. It is so good at reducing noise - and followed bv PK Capture Sharpener Pro for restoring any lost acutance, that I have not bothered testing ACR noise reduction capabilities. By using Noise Ninja on a separate layer, and with PK on its own layers by design, one can play back and forth with layer opacities to get just the right combination of noise reduction and capture sharpening.

Good points. I think I saw something about that in the most recent edition of the LLVJ (#13).

That certainly is more convenient than the ACR noise reduction.

I think RAW file handling would be much more convenient if RAW files were made first class citizens in Photoshop, although I think I can understand why this hasn't happened yet.

But you are right - a decent profiled and calibrated monitor is a higher priority for good Photoshop work - you must be using something decent there, otherwise you would be expending alot of paper and ink to get the results you are showing.

Well, I haven't even tried to print these images yet, simply because I think my current setup doesn't allow me to predict the results of a print easily enough. So that particular credit isn't really due, even though the images do look good on-screen.

There is a better solution on the way for me in terms of hardware, though; a hunking big PowerMac with a 23" Cinema HD (we got a decent Christmas bonus at work this year).

I'm also browsing for daylight lamps to review prints with. Today, I have to take my prints for a walk to check them properly.


BTW, I just realized that the link I posted to the 100% crop from the ISO 3200 image had a typo in it. Edited and fixed.

[Mark D Segal]

Jan,

On the subject of the 24~105L, having now made several thousand photographs with it, I reconfirm what I wrote for this website when I tested it (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24vs28.shtml). It is tack sharp, great contrast, excellent portability, very good IS, and very suitable zoom range. I walked around with it alot, believe me, and it is my basic lens.

When you get your Apple Cinema monitor, also check out ColorEyes Display (the X-Rite colorimeter and software) from Integrated Color Corporation for calibrating and profiling it. It is another few hundred dollars of expenditure but worth every penny. Michael reviewed this product on L-L (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/coloreyes-display.shtml). I have been using it for some time now and am very satisfied.

For daylight indoor lighting, I am using Solux lighting (www.solux.net). Their website is an education. They recommend, correctly, their 4700K bulbs for photography, providing the closest matching by the human eye of a print viewed under this lighting with a monitor calibrated to 6500K. Now why a print viewed in reflected light from a 4700K bulb should provide the closest match to a 6500K monitor image is one of those mysteries of human vision, but it works. These are halogen lights used with step-down transformers so I assume they can work as well in Norway as they do here in North America, provided you have the right fixture/transformer. I strung six of them on a ceiling track and bought one of their Solux desk lamps. It's a very reliable set-up (as my walls and ceiling are neutral) - the next best thing, (but considerably cheaper) to buying one of those fancy light boxes with variable luminosity. Having the variable luminosity would be nice, but it is more money and more desk space.

[jani]

On the subject of the 24~105L, having now made several thousand photographs with it, I reconfirm what I wrote for this website when I tested it (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24vs28.shtml). It is tack sharp, great contrast, excellent portability, very good IS, and very suitable zoom range. I walked around with it alot, believe me, and it is my basic lens.

Thanks, I think that just helped me decide on setting aside even more money for future equipment.

When you get your Apple Cinema monitor, also check out ColorEyes Display (the X-Rite colorimeter and software) from Integrated Color Corporation for calibrating and profiling it. It is another few hundred dollars of expenditure but worth every penny. Michael reviewed this product on L-L (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/coloreyes-display.shtml). I have been using it for some time now and am very satisfied.

Thanks for the advice. I'll first try with that EyeOne Pro I borrowed the last time, to see if that gives satisfactory results, but eventually I'll want something that's my personal colorimeter.

For daylight indoor lighting, I am using Solux lighting (www.solux.net). Their website is an education. They recommend, correctly, their 4700K bulbs for photography, providing the closest matching by the human eye of a print viewed under this lighting with a monitor calibrated to 6500K. Now why a print viewed in reflected light from a 4700K bulb should provide the closest match to a 6500K monitor image is one of those mysteries of human vision, but it works. These are halogen lights used with step-down transformers so I assume they can work as well in Norway as they do here in North America, provided you have the right fixture/transformer. I strung six of them on a ceiling track and bought one of their Solux desk lamps. It's a very reliable set-up (as my walls and ceiling are neutral) - the next best thing, (but considerably cheaper) to buying one of those fancy light boxes with variable luminosity. Having the variable luminosity would be nice, but it is more money and more desk space.

Thanks again, I'll make a note of this particular equipment. While my workroom is hardly neutral in colour (book cases on both side walls), proper lighting will work wonders compared to the dim tube lights I have now.

[dwdallam]

Canon offers the 24-105 f/4L IS instead, and that's because Canon does see the customers' need for IS even on lenses in this range.

Think about that one for a bit; the modern IS gives you up to three stops worth of headroom, so unless you need the shallowness in DOF that f/2.8 gives you or the actual shorter shutter time, you have the equivalent of f/1.4 for usability. And that goes for tripod use as well.
My gripe is that they didn't make an f/2.8 with IS. The 24-70 f/2.8L is already heavy (950 g), and making an IS version doesn't seem to increase the weight a lot (EF 70-200 f/2.8: 1310 g, IS: 1470 g).
Speaking of weight, the 24-105 f/4L IS only weighs 670 g, and the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS weighs 475 g (half the weight of the 24-70!). I'm fairly certain that these two would be more comfortable as walk-around lenses than my 24-70.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54582\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There must be a reason why they don't offer it on a F2.8 lens of that focal length. With F4 and slower shutter speeds, I can see the need for it. I my mind and albeit limited experience, the IS comes in handy when you are at longer focal lengths--70-200--and slower apertures, which equal longer shutters. And from what I've seen reviewed, if you want or need more stops in low light situations, your probably not going to get fine art quality sharpness hand holding anyway with an F4 at slow shutters, even with IS enabled. The way I understand the usefulness of IS is when you have "relatively" fast shutter speeds, a heavy lens, and long focal lengths, and you need that extra stabilization, such as sport shots where light really isn't a problem, but panning a camera with a long and heavy lens, for instance, is a necessity. So you may have a situation where you are hand holding a 70-200 at 195 mm at F4. But to each his or her own.  On the other hand, I could probably be persuaded by arguments that all lenses should have it no matter what you are doing with them. I mean, it could be argued that anything to get a sharper image is a good thing.