17-55 F2.8 IS vs 24-105 F4L IS

[fastcat]

thank you fastcat for your input. would you be kind enough to share a picture or two taken with your 17-85? RAW or large JPEG uncropped. i'd like to print out and take a look by myself.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78543\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would be happy to provide one or more RAW samples.  First, a couple questions to help me choose something of value:  What kind of photography do you do?  What lens & image characteristics are you most interested in?... focal length, aperture, light conditions, etc.    Re printing out, I assume you are you aware that all Canon 20D RAW images are soft and need sharpening during or after conversion.
John

[franxon]

Unless I missed it, you have never discussed what type of photographs you take mostly.  If you're into landscapes, a wider angle than 24mm on an APS sensor will come in handy.  On the other hand, if you mostly shoot street photography, it is likely that the 24-105mm range will be far more useful to you.  Both of these ideas center on the idea of only one lens, however.  There is not now, nor is there likely to ever be, a high quality lens that covers all of our photographic needs.  My suggestion is to examine your photos and find what focal lengths you tend to shoot and go from there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78919\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

sorry Carl and fastcat for my carelessness. i firstly wanted this lens for travel but the trip was postponed to late Oct it can ever be made. I mainly want this lens for landscape and architecture (but i can't afford TS-E lenses). street photography too but i believe 55mm on 20D isn't that bad for my street need (88mm equiv), of cuz, 85 or 105mm is more handy.

so what say you?

[RedRebel]

On the 20D the 24-105 focal length is traditionally less useful.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76935\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree depending on your shooting. For city shooting the 24-105 starts at 35mm on a 20D and that is not wide enough for city shooting imho.

Having said that, the 24-105L is a very good investment speaking of both optical and build quality. Adding a 17-40L would solve the problem.

[fastcat]

sorry Carl and fastcat for my carelessness. i firstly wanted this lens for travel but the trip was postponed to late Oct it can ever be made. I mainly want this lens for landscape and architecture (but i can't afford TS-E lenses). street photography too but i believe 55mm on 20D isn't that bad for my street need (88mm equiv), of cuz, 85 or 105mm is more handy.

so what say you?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Try this one.  Here's my take:
[a href=\"http://www.pbase.com/h4xintl/image/44554285]http://www.pbase.com/h4xintl/image/44554285[/url]

The RAW is attached.

John

[fastcat]

I don't know what happened to the attachment.  Trying again:

[jrynash]

The cameralabs resolutions tests regarding the 17-85, 17-55 and 17-40 are quite different (and seem unusual to me) than tests at other sites such as www.photozone.de here:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/ca...56_is/index.htm

and here:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/ca...55_28/index.htm

I own both the 17-85IS and the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 17-55 wins for sharpness and resolution against the 17-85 without a doubt, and does so across the range of aperture and focal length.

One thing I would like to note is that the 17-55 is sharper when focused to distances greater then ~6ft. If you look at the results at

http://www.cameralabs.com/features/Canon40...ade/page5.shtml

It looks like the resolution of the 17-55 is not all that great using the resolution chart. In particular it looks worse then the 17-85

However if you look at the results of an outdoor photograph
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon1755EFS/page4.shtml
The resolution of the lens is better then the 17-85

This corresponds with my own testing. Focused in close around 3 feet, the lens is sharp, but not super sharp. Focused on something about 10 feet or more away, the lens is very sharp, and the resolution is limited by the 10mp of a the 400D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=77435\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[franxon]

I own both the 17-85IS and the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 17-55 wins for sharpness and resolution against the 17-85 without a doubt, and does so across the range of aperture and focal length.

thank you for your input jrynash. how does such difference look between 17-85 and 17-55 look on A4 and A3 prints?