Test pictures from today

Diego Garcia

Diego Garcia

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,238
Edit My Images
Yes
Well, not good. Went out today and tested the 17 - 40MM L, the 24 - 70mm L, the 70 - 200mm L. I can safely say that the first two do not compare to the 17 - 85 I sold to Sammy C. :thinking: :thumbsdown:

I shot in raw, exactly as I would have done with the 17 - 85 and nope, unimpressed. usual capture one workflow to tiff and cs2. I will steer clear of these now. Next test is the 28 - 105 L but no one has one anywhere, which is a shame as ths IS sounds great and I feel that F4 is fast enough for me!

The 70 - 200 is nice, but kinda neither here nor there as a length, though the F4 is a boon. It is arguably better than the IS version.

I reckon you got a superb lens from me, even more so now. :)

Here is a test from the 17 - 40L.

IMG_9735.jpg


Here is tet from the 24 - 70L

24-70.jpg



Here is the surprise package, the 17 - 55 IS USM F2.8. Very nice, very nice indeed.

17-55.jpg


Finally, here is the 70 - 200 non IS L. Stopped down to 2.8 handheld at 200mm, 1/80 sec. For a tad over £400 it may make a bargain ish street lens.

700.jpg


So, from my test shots, which I converted to get the detail, I deduced that the bokeh on the 24 - 70 is superb but the 2.8 IS USM is not far behind, likewise the 17 - 40 is good at F4. In reality, I think that there is little to choose between the lenses now I look at them on here.

What are your thoughts? I was expecting the images to leap off the page but they have not. Maybe I was expecting too much, but thats what they did with my 17 - 85 IS?!?!?!?!? I do note that the chin lines on the first shot are very well defined. What I find amazing is that there is a price range of £500.00 up to £1000.00 here and they all seem inherently similar.

Diego.
 
I can't really comment on the images, as i'm sat out on the back lawn in strong sunlight while typing this.

I am however surprised that you didn't like the 17-40L :eek:
I've had one for over a year and it still spends more time on my 20D than any other lens I have.

With regard to the 70-200, if you were ever to find that the focal length offered was adequate, I'd say snub the L f4 in favor of Sigma's EX f2.8, it's optics have been proven to be a match for Canon's f2.8 equiverlant so the extra outlay would only be justifed IF you need the IS
needless to that when I was looking for a good tele lens to replace my 75-300 IS i opted for the Sigma and money wasn't a factor!!!
 
Diego Garcia said:
Finally, here is the 70 - 200 non IS L. Stopped down to 2.8 handheld at 200mm, 1/80 sec. For a tad over £400 it may make a bargain ish street lens.
Click to expand...

where on earth are you getting the 70-200 F2.8L for just over £400 :eek:
 
it's not the f2.8 he was looking at, it was the f4
The sigma is an f2.8

I think i paid 520 for my ex 2.8
 
Those results look all over the place to me.
The photo taken with the 17-40 is extremely sharp and the one from the 24-70 is very soft.

I would guess camera shake is playing a part in some of those images.
From my experience the 24-70 does take some getting used to, it's not a lens you can just pickup and get sharp photos straight off.
 
Well, the further developments today. I went to an alternative shop, Bristol cameras with whom I have spent serious money with over the years and I tested a 24 - 70L there. In fact so impressed by it I bought it from them. Not had much time to test out and about but seems great, IS is irrelivant at the length and the build is pure class.

I also tested the 28 - 105 which in Jessops which seemed slower and neither here nor there really, though good with the right kit and user.

For me now, its case case of mastering a lens with superb speed @ 2.8 not worrying about IS. I mean I use my 50mm prime loads and thats non IS and the results are superb, right the way through the Fs.

Nice one,

Diego.
 
Diego Garcia said:
Bristol cameras with whom I have spent serious money with over the years and I tested a 24 - 70L there. In fact so impressed by it I bought it from them
Click to expand...

Well done its a great lens in anyones book. Read the reviews..:)
 
busterboy said:
Well done its a great lens in anyones book. Read the reviews..:)
Click to expand...

Thanks. I seemed to get bogged down by desk jockey reviews, especially american ones that lament over the usual inane stuff that they worry about and usually review, for want of a better word, with the bombastic nature of american vernacular such as 'this lens sux', 'this lens rox'...fade to black.

Catch my drift.

Hence why TP is as good as it is!

Diego.
 
Do you think you tried a duff one before then Diego?
 
SammyC said:
Do you think you tried a duff one before then Diego?
Click to expand...

Possibly Sammy. We have all read about the variant in lens production over the years and there was even an article in one of last months shelf mags about it. The one I bought sat seems fine but quite literally cant left the camera due to saturday nights events, so not really had a chance to test it.

I still think that IS does produce sharper images.

Did you have ablast on the 17 - 85 ?? ? ? ? ?
 
Yes, I read about that. That's the trouble with decent lenses, they weigh a lot!

I didn't get a chance really, too much drinkning going on and I don't like to have it out with me if we're being social.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top