Nice simple question: What website do you most trust for lens reviews for Canon?

Actually, I'd better qualify why I am asking the question. :rules:

Been doing a lot of experiment indoors with my newish nifty-fifty and my few years old 17-85. Of course there is no mistaking which one gives the sharpest results. My 50 is great for mucking about but most of the outdoor shots I like to take at anywhere from 17 to 30. The 50 just isn't wide enough for me. :|

Soo.. in the no-hurried look out for a good keeper lens but still undecided about a number of points (ie fixed or zoom, do I save up for a faster lens to make it all purpose etc). :thinking:

You would think that most website reviews would perform similar tests on sharpness, flare, vignetting, build quality etc but...if I had hair left I would be tearing it out. I read a great review for a lens on one site then go to others that slam it. :bang:

Is there one or two that are considered gospel?
 
Oohh another tammy I see ;)

there's a few considered around here such as dpreview but really alot of these testers go OTT.

Alot of lenses perform well and the flaws aren't noticed to 99% of people however reviewers put people off from buying the lens because it may have flare issues etc.

I'd keep with you 17-85mm or purchas a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which is considered one of the best lenses for APS-C sensored cameras.
 
I'm going to keep the 17-85 for general walkabout (unless I have an extremely good couple of weeks then I upgrade to Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 and all problems are solved).

But looking for a good landscape lens, as sharp as the fifty but of course much wider.
 
I also find http://photozone.de/ very good for reviews.

They seem to be very level headed in expectations for lenses and give good conclusions.
 
It takes me 5 minutes to read a review, so I would never rely on one site above all others to make a call on a £300+ investment. Yes, I read all of them pretty much.

That said, the ones I visit ALL the time for lenses - and why:

the-digital-picture.com (good for comparing stats and lens sizes visually etc)
photozone.de (my inner engineer loves it)
fredmiranda.com (it's good if it gives good pics)
kenrockwell.com (points out stuff others miss, ken-filter required)

For camera bodies, always start with dpreview and then go from there.. a lot more in-depth camera reviews pop up in blogs etc than lens reviews.
 
Laudrup said:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/

Although I don't fully trust any site 100%.
Click to expand...

I use that site, I also use photozone.de and anywhere else I can find a review when considering a lens. I've found most review sites to be very critical of the lenses they review, which is good in a way but dont let them put you off too much, there is no perfect lens after all.
 
I don't trust any site 100% I look at a few and see what they say but in reality I pay little or no attention to site as I like to try lenses out myself before I buy.
 
If they have tested the lens you are interested in....
Then http://www.slrgear.com/
The raw results are there to be interpreted along with a brief summary.

Their results match what I've found regards weaknesses and sweet spots on all the lenses I have.
If it's purple right across the frame then it is an exceptional lens.
Any aperture / zoom combination showing green (or worse) in part of the frame will be slightly soft at 100% on the 5DII.
 
I prefer forums like here or photography on the net (Canon) and Nikon Cafe (Nikon). People on here and other forums shoot real life subjects and not just test charts. Try YouTube as well, people like Jared Polin or DigitalRev with Kai who is like the Jeremy Clarkson for cameras.
 
As I think you know, the real answer to your question is 17-55 2.8 ;) That's where you'll end up sooner or later :D

There are always problems with lens tests. Every website I know uses a flat test target of some sort, and with shorter focal length lenses it has to be used at very close distance. Wide lenses always suffer from a certain amount of field curvature, which is completely irrelevant in practice, but when you shoot a flat target it usualy shows up as poor edge sharpness where there is in fact none.

I like the-digital-picture's tests, but if you check the small print of their review procedure, they admit to this failing and actually cite the 17-55 as an example which doesn't perform well in their tests, but we all know (and so do they) that it is absolutely one of the best lenses Canon has ever made! DPReview are also pretty good.

It's not just a question of shooting a target and printing out a set of numbers. That's part of it, but a fully rounded test is very much more extensive and needs a test person who knows a bit about lenses. I always look for the author of the test and I guess my real question is does this person know about lenses? And also, sad to say, are they commercially biased?
 
Hi Richard,

Is the 17-55 reallly that good, particulary wide open? I will probably upgrade the kit lens (18-55IS) in the not too distant future. I am struggling to choose what lens to get in this range, I typically will only buy Canon but can't choose between 17-55,17-40,24-70 and the 24-105. I will probably go full frame aswell, but that won't be anytime soon.

I'm concerned about it at f2.8 therefore if I need to stop down, I will consider the other contenders:thumbs:



Andy
 
AndyB1976 said:
Hi Richard,

Is the 17-55 reallly that good, particulary wide open? I will probably upgrade the kit lens (18-55IS) in the not too distant future. I am struggling to choose what lens to get in this range, I typically will only buy Canon but can't choose between 17-55,17-40,24-70 and the 24-105. I will probably go full frame aswell, but that won't be anytime soon.

I'm concerned about it at f2.8 therefore if I need to stop down, I will consider the other contenders:thumbs:



Andy
Click to expand...

The Canon 17-55 2.8 is as good as it gets for that spec. I loved mine and I honestly doubt that you'll have any problems with it at all, or that you would get any better performance, in terms of sharpness, from a prime. The prime would likely run to f/1.4 though ;)

I would either get that, or the 15-85 which is also very sharp and has a fantastic range, but is only 3.5-5.6. That's the trade off.

I seriously wouldn't get any of those EF zooms. Excellent though they are, they're for full frame and don't go wide enough for walkabout shooting on a crop sensor camera. Get an EF-S lens, and sell it on if/when you move to full frame. The 17-55 2.8 in particular is very sought after and holds its value well.

But if you want sharpness, and general all round IQ yummyness (and you output big enough to see it) then you want full frame. No lens on a crop camera, no matter how good and now matter how many pixels etc, can compete with full frame. The sensor is just 2.5x larger.
 
Thanks for that reply Richard:thumbs:

mastertrinity said:
:lol: I never thought of that! He really is the Clarkson of cameras!
Click to expand...

He is!! :lol:

Kai's videos are excellent. I also quite like Dom Bower on YouTube, not specifically lenses however, but seems generally a nice and knowledgeable guy from Edinburgh.:clap:
 
Kai is brilliant!

You got to check out Digital Rev videos if you haven't seen them
 
www.bobatkins.com - if you are a Canonite anyway.

I used to love Bob's website, real detailed but fair analysis and some excellent articles that I've never seen anyone else get even close to.

Not sure quite whats happening there recently though, Bob had a falling out of love with Canon a while back.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top